REGRESSIVE TAX EXPENDITURES FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SINGLES AND POOR FAMILIES

Posted on July 31, 2018 by ffswpadmin

REGRESSIVE TAX EXPENDITURES FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SINGLES AND POOR FAMILIES

(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 purpose of this blog has been to highlight the gross financial discrimination singles and poor families face in this country. However, many including governments, families and married persons fail to understand or choose to ignore the real financial truth. The discovery of information on regressive tax expenditures has provided an “OMG moment” because it supports what we have been saying since the beginning of this blog. It provides solid information that poverty is not a figment of the imagination and is not created by the poor. Instead, wealth has been purposefully created for the top 50% of Canadians by government policies, especially regressive tax expenditures.

Blog article discussion on “Out of the Shadows” appears at beginning of article. Reproduction of “Will federal tax review lay the groundwork for real tax reform in the next budget?” appears at the end of this article.

PRELUDE

The Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) “Out of the shadows” (loopholes) report published December, 2016 ‘examines the distribution of benefits from Canada’s 64 personal income tax expenditures where data is available, ranking them from least to most progressive. A tax measure can be said to be relatively progressive if more than half its benefits go to the lower half of income earners. Likewise, a tax measure is regressive if most benefits go to Canada’s higher-income earners’. (It should be noted that the 64 expenditures by no means covers all of the possible expenditures as evidenced by those not reviewed that are listed in Appendix II Excluded Tax Expenditures).

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY -Excerpts from CCPA report pages 5 – 7

ONLY 5 OF THE 64 EXPENDITURES ARE PROGRESSIVE

Only five – the working income tax benefit (only one—the Working Income Tax Benefit—exclusively supports Canada’s working poor), non-taxation of the guaranteed income supplement, non-taxation of social assistance, the refundable medical expense deduction, and the disability tax credit can be described as relatively progressive, with a maximum benefit of $1,100 or less.

THE REMAINING 59 EXPENDITURES ARE REGRESSIVE AND COST $100.5B IN 2011

The remaining 59 regressive tax expenditures cost the federal government $100.5 billion in 2011 while providing more benefit to those above the median individual income level.

FIVE MOST REGRESSIVE TAX EXPENDITURES PROVIDE 99% BENEFITS TO TOP HALF

The five most regressive tax expenditures provide 99% or more of their benefit to the upper half of income earners. These tax expenditures pension income splitting, dividend gross-up, stock option deduction, credit for partial inclusion of capital gains, and foreign tax credit cost the government between $740 million and $4.1 billion each per year, totalling $10.4 billion in 2011. Four of these five tax expenditures have no maximum individual value, while pension income splitting where 83% of the benefit goes to the top income decile maxes out at $11,700 per person. That is 10 times the maximum benefit to Canada’s poorest from the five progressive tax expenditures. If those loopholes were closed, the federal government could use that money to eliminate university tuition and create an affordable national child care program.

IN 2011 TAX EXPENDITURES COST ROUGHLY AS MUCH AS ALL INCOME TAXES COLLECTED

In total, personal income tax expenditures cost $103 billion in 2011, which is roughly as much as all income taxes collected that year ($121 billion). It is also not much less than what the federal government spends annually to pay for the Canada Pension Plan, employment insurance, the GST credit, the universal child care benefit, the Canada child tax benefit and the national child benefit supplement combined ($113 billion).

TWO TAX SYSTEMS, SHADOW SYSTEM FOR THE RICH, THE OTHER FOR POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS

Existing tax expenditures, on the other hand, provide on average a $15,000-per-person benefit to the richest Canadians. By comparison Canada’s poorest Canadians receive only $130 from tax expenditures and $1,130 from all federal income transfers. In essence there are two federal transfers systems in Canada: one for the poor and middle class, and another shadow transfer system for the rich. Each system transfers roughly the same amount of money.

RECOMMENDATIONS RE MODEST STEPS TO ELIMINATING MOST REGRESSIVE AND EXPENSIVE TAX EXPENDITURES

The annual tax expenditures report from Finance Canada should include the distribution of tax expenditures across the income spectrum.
Tax expenditures should be included explicitly as costs in federal government financial reporting, including the main estimates, federal budget and fiscal updates.
The federal government should target annual savings in tax expenditures of 5% (worth $5.1 billion a year) through the closure, capping or phasing-out of the most regressive loopholes. This would take 20 years for total elimination.
Policy-makers should continue to examine tax expenditures through a broad income inequality or vertical equity lens, and to consider the totality of these expenditures as a grossly unfair shadow transfer system for Canada’s richest tax filers.

REPORTING OF EXPENDITURES AND TRANSFERS OCCUR UNEQUALLY

(Page 9) Reporting of expenditures versus transfers – …. Moreover, while the cost of tax expenditures are individually estimated, they are not evaluated in the aggregate or compared to other large federal expenditures like federal income transfers. The latter are updated regularly and incorporated into public documents like the federal budget, main estimates and fiscal updates. Tax expenditures, on the other hand, are relegated to federal tax expenditure and evaluation reports that are published separately and frequently overlooked.

ASSESSING PROGRESSIVITY VERSUS REGRESSIVITY

(Page 10) Progressivity versus regressivity-…..While it may be tempting to think of one set as progressive and the other regressive based on the types of activities they target, this is not how tax systems are generally judged. Assessing Canada’s tax expenditures through a vertical equity lens allows us to precisely determine what income groups benefit the most.

NET WORTH AND ASSETS LEFT OUT OF ANALYSIS

(Page 11) Report readily admits that ranking scheme focuses exclusively on current annual income and ignores other potential measures of progressivity that one might consider, such as measures based on wealth or lifetime earnings.

Blog author’s comment:

In this blog we have commented many times on how tax expenditures are handed out to the wealthy when they don’t need it because their net worth and assets have not been taken into consideration in financial formulas.

TAX EXPENDITURES PERCENTAGE OF BENEFITS TO BOTTOM HALF

(Page 12) Table 1 shows 2011 Tax Expenditures Cost, Distribution and Progressivity and % of the 64 benefits to bottom half. (The percentage of each individual expenditure is generally below 30% to the bottom half.)

FIVE MOST PROGRESSIVE (VERTICALLY EQUITABLE) TAX EXPENDITURES

(Page 15-17) Only five of Canada’s 64 expenditures are more beneficial for lower-income earners and therefore more positive in terms of correcting income inequalities. These are the working tax credit, non-taxation of the GIS and spousal allowance, refundable medical expenses, non-taxation of social assistance benefits and disability tax credit…..These five most progressive tax expenditures have a few things in common. First, there is either an explicit maximum individual benefit or the value is based on another program that itself is capped…..Second, the maximum benefit is paid out in the lower half of the income spectrum and tapers out afterwards…..Finally, three of the five tax expenditures are related to seniors, including the non-taxation of GIS benefits, the disability tax credit and the refundable medical expenses supplement…..

Blog author’s comment:

This is the way assistance for low income Canadians should work, thus promoting financial fairness for all Canadians.

FIVE MOST REGRESSIVE (VERTICALLY INEQUITABLE) TAX EXPENDITURES

(Page 18) ….The vast majority provide more benefit to the richest half of Canadians. To narrow it down to five (dividend gross-up and tax credit, partial inclusion of capital gains, foreign tax credit for individuals, employee stock option deduction, and pension income splitting), those tax expenditures providing 99% of their benefit to the highest-earning Canadians are isolated (14 of 64 expenditures) then sorted by cost. The first thing that stands out in Figure 2 is the marked difference in distributional impact of Canada’s regressive and progressive tax expenditures. The benefits of the former (regressive) are clearly concentrated in the richest decile, with little or no benefit leaking down even to Canada’s middle-income earners and absolutely nothing for the poorest Canadians. In the latter (progressive) category, benefits generally peaked in the third or fourth deciles, but they also spread beyond this zone, frequently also into the upper deciles.

PENSION SPLITTING MOST REGRESSIVE TAX EXPENDITURE

(Page 18-19) The most regressive tax expenditure, which comes with a cost to government of $975 million annually, is pension income splitting. This tax measure allows a couple to shift up to half the pension income of the higher-earning spouse to the lower earner at tax time. The lower-earning spouse would still pay tax on the amount transferred, but at a lower marginal rate. (Figure 4) This transfer effect is why the distribution shows negative bars in deciles four through seven: lower earners will pay higher taxes as pension income is transferred, but presumably net family taxes will be lower.

Benefits from pension income splitting are concentrated at the very top, with 83% of the value of the expenditure going to the richest decile. In contrast with the other most regressive tax expenditures, there is maximum benefit to this tax expenditure of $11,675 when $128,800 of pension income is transferred from a higher earner to a spouse with no income. While capped, this maximum benefit is 10 times more generous than any of the five most progressive tax expenditures.

Blog author’s comment:

Re pension splitting zero per cent (0%) of senior single person households and equal income married or coupled partners receive any monies from this expenditure. Poor families (bottom half) receive virtually no benefit because they have less income to split than the wealthy.

DIVIDEND GROSS-UP, STOCK OPTION DEDUCTIONS AND PARTIAL INCLUSION OF CAPITAL GAINS

(Page 19-21) There are commonalities among these regressive loopholes whose benefit is most concentrated among the richest half of Canadians. For one thing, three of the five regressive expenditures are related to capital ownership; that is to say, to the ownership, purchase and sale of stocks, real estate, businesses and the like. This is not an activity most Canadians take part in, let alone have to worry about at tax time. Second, four of the five tax expenditures have no maximum value and the fifth has a very high maximum. This also has the effect of concentrating benefits among those with more money to spend.

Blog author’s comment:

These three tax loopholes are available only to the wealthiest Canadians because they are the the only ones with the means to partake of these loopholes. When the wealthiest Canadians have these three tax loopholes why do they need even more loopholes? Article “Will federal tax review lay the groundwork for real tax reform in the next budget?” at the end of this blog post provides a very good comment on what could be done to reduce these tax loopholes.

Dividend gross-up and tax credit

(Page 24) The fifth most expensive tax expenditure is the dividend gross-up and tax credit, which cost $4.1 billion in 2011. As discussed above, the credit is also among the top five most regressive expenditures, with 92% of the benefits going to the richest decile.

(Page 25) In another comparison, recovering three-quarters of what is lost to the dividend gross-up each year could eliminate tuition for undergraduate university students, or it could halve the cost of long-term care for aging Canadians. Tax expenditures are the same as any other real government spending: they are a fiscal choice governments make and can unmake if they want to. The money that today goes to padding the incomes of Canada’s rich could tomorrow go to eliminating poverty and reducing income inequality.

(Page 20) This tax expenditure gives shareholders of Canadian firms receiving a dividend a credit for what the corporation already paid on its profits, so that those profits are not “double taxed.”…..Seen in this light, Canada’s tax expenditure for corporate dividends looks very much like special treatment for the already very wealthy. The dividend gross-up has no maximum value, as it is related to the amount of Canadian eligible dividends paid to any individual.

Blog author’s comment:

Re: Good discussion on “Big 3” regressive tax expenditures (dividend gross-up, stock option deduction and credit for partial inclusion of capital gains) that overwhelmingly benefit rich Canadians is given in article “Will federal tax review lay the groundwork for real tax reform in the next budget?” shown at the end of this blog post. (These expenditures alone cost a combined $12 billion annually – more than enough to pay for, say, a national pharmacare program).

FIVE COSTLIEST TAX EXPENDITURES

(Page 22-25) Though they may not be the most regressive, based on the criteria established above, it is worth commenting on how all five of the most costly personal tax expenditures (Credit for the Basic Personal Amount, net Registered Pension Plan or RRP expenditure, net Registered Retirement Savings Plan or RRSP expenditure, non-taxation of Capital Gains on Principal Residences, and Dividend Gross-up and Tax Credit) still provide far higher benefits to those in the upper income deciles than those in the lower half of Canadian income earners (see Figure 3).

At the top of this list is the basic personal amount all Canadians can claim as tax-free income on their tax forms ($10,527 in 2011). This tax expenditure costs an incredible $29 billion a year. To put that number in perspective, roughly a quarter of every tax dollar collected in 2011 was returned through the basic personal amount. This tax expenditure is roughly equivalent to having an additional tax bracket under $10,527 at 0%, despite the fact that the other tax brackets are not considered tax expenditures. That being said, changing the basic personal exemption would have major implications. Besides being the most expensive, this tax expenditure is the most evenly distributed, at least in this category, with a third of the benefit going to the bottom half of Canadians. The maximum benefit in 2011 was $1,579, accessible to everyone who paid income tax, and received by virtually everyone in the fifth decile and above. The universal application of this tax expenditure to all taxpayers, particularly in the top half of the income distribution, is the reason it is so expensive.

The second and third most expensive tax expenditures are the registered pension plans (RPP) and the registered retirement savings plans (RRSP), which cost the government $16 billion and $9 billion a year respectively. The benefits of these tax expenditures are slightly more concentrated among Canada’s highest-income earners, who receive 57% of the benefit from RPPs and 63% of the benefit from RRSPs, and in both cases there is little benefit outside of the top three deciles.

(The complete discussion of RPP and RRSPs in the report has not been included here).….It is often difficult to contextualize the opportunity costs of spending billions of dollars on a tax expenditure. For comparison’s sake, the combined net loss from the RRSP and RPP tax preferences is $26 billion a year. This is three times the $9 billion spent on the GIS and spousal allowance, which are dedicated to reducing poverty among low-income seniors. By spending only a third of the government revenues lost to RRSP and RPPs every year we could eliminate seniors’ poverty in Canada.

To evaluate the effectiveness of this tax-shifting strategy, Figure 4 shows the distribution of benefits for contributors compared to the distribution of RRSP withdrawals. Assuming that contribution and withdrawal trends continue in terms of percentage benefit, and not in terms of aggregate amounts, it is clear the richest decile will benefit the most. The richest decile sees 57% of the benefits from contributions, but only pays back 31% of the tax on withdrawals. RPPs have a slightly worse distribution, with the top two deciles seeing a net lifetime benefit. Even on a lifetime basis, instead of a cash-flow basis, the top decile sees the most benefit given current trends.

The fourth most expensive tax expenditure, non-taxation of capital gains on a principle residence, cost the government $4.7 billion in 2011. This tax expenditure is of very little use to the bottom half of the population, which sees 10% of the benefits.

The fifth most expensive tax expenditure is the dividend gross-up and tax credit, which cost $4.1 billion in 2011. As discussed above, the credit is also among the top five most regressive expenditures, with 92% of the benefits going to the richest decile.

…..Tax expenditures are the same as any other real government spending: they are a fiscal choice governments make and can unmake if they want to. The money that today goes to padding the incomes of Canada’s rich could tomorrow go to eliminating poverty and reducing income inequality.

TAX EXPENDITURES SHOULD BE TREATED AS A SYSTEM

(Page 26 – 28) 26 Beyond ComparIng Canada’s individual tax expenditures for their progressivity or regressivity, we should be treating these tax expenditures as a system, as we might federal income transfers. In that case, we can apply the same equity lens to the tax expenditure system in the aggregate to determine if the totality of these measures increase or decrease income inequality in Canada.

Based on the analysis above, the answer should be clear: if 59 of Canada’s 64 tax expenditures are regressive (i.e., they benefit the upper half of income earners more than the lower half), we should expect the system as a whole to fail the equity test. In fact, the total cost of these regressive measures is astonishing….As such, only broad conclusions are drawn from the aggregation of tax expenditures. From a policy perspective, if raising money from closing tax expenditures is the goal, a piecemeal approach is unlikely to provide as much benefit as a more comprehensive tax policy reassessment…..

The standout conclusion we come to from aggregating all personal tax expenditures is that that system is very expensive, costing the government $103 billion a year. As shown in

Table 2, this is only slightly less than the $121 billion collected in federal personal income taxes in 2011. Think about that: almost every dollar collected in personal income taxes is immediately given back through tax expenditures. Put another way, if revenues currently forgone through personal income tax expenditures were collected, the federal government would roughly double the amount of money at its disposal for other priorities.

…..While both tax expenditures and traditional income transfers result in effective transfers and are of roughly the same aggregate cost, their distribution differs dramatically, as shown in Figure 5. Federal transfers peak in the fourth decile for those with incomes between $17,000 and $22,000. The average combined federal transfer is $8,400 a person, which is mostly made up of transfers from CPP and GIS/OAS.

Blog author’s comment:

This author has talked about tax loopholes being addressed only in a vertical fashion by governments and policy makers. This has created financial silos (continued-financial-illiteracy) where impact of one loophole is not assessed in totality with other loopholes. However, loopholes are compounded on top of loopholes. For, example wealthy get full OAS who then put this money into their Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) and then don’t have to report investment income from TFSA as income. Financial formulas should be assessed both on a vertical and a horizontal level. Add link on financial silos.

FEDERAL TAX TRANSFERS ARE SMALL FOR LARGEST COMPONENT OF SINGLES AND LONE PARENTS

(Page 28 – 29) FEDERAL TRANSFERS are surprisingly small for the poorest deciles when you consider that most programs target the poorest and clawback transfer payments as incomes rise. There are two reasons for this. The first is that the distribution is based on individual and not family incomes (see Appendix I for more on this). So someone earning no income would fit in the poorest decile even if their spouse made a million dollars a year.

The second, more worrying reason is that many of those in the poorest deciles are either single parents or single adults. Almost all of the federal transfer money paid to the poorest two deciles is for child-related benefits and goes mostly to single-parent families where the parent is almost always a woman. For single adults, or adult couples without children who are not seniors, the only available federal transfer is the GST credit, which maxed out at $253 per person in 2011.

FEDERAL TRANSFERS peak in the fourth decile, but they are slightly skewed to richer Canadians as they provide benefits all the way to the top of the income spectrum. In fact, those in the richest decile, with incomes over $84,000 a year, receive slightly more on average from federal transfers ($1,300) than the average person in the poorest decile ($1,200). This is entirely due to higher CPP payments to the top deciles. Those in the ninth decile, where incomes sit between $61,000 and $84,000 a year, receive on average $2,500 a person twice as much as those in the poorest decile.

TAX EXPENDITURES, on the other hand, have a dramatically different distribution, with benefits highly concentrated (39%) in the richest decile, where the average transfer is $15,000 a year. That amount is double the $8,400 those in the fourth decile receive in government transfers (largely to support low-income seniors). Put another way, tax expenditures provide 11 times more benefit to the richest people in Canada than government transfers do for the poorest (those making under $4,000 a year).

From an aggregate perspective, therefore, the $103 billion lost annually to tax expenditures is an embarrassing failure of Canadian tax policy. With the same amount of money the government could send an annual cheque of at least $21,800 to all Canadians, completely eliminating poverty. The money spent on tax expenditures also has an opportunity cost: it means funds are not available for physical infrastructure or to improve social program, both of which have a much higher economic multiplier in driving economic growth.

Blog author’s comment:

This blog is based on highlighting the financial discrimination of singles (ever singles and divorced early in life persons). The above segment is refreshing in that it supports what we have been saying over the past few years.

TWO EQUAL SYSTEMS OF EQUAL VALUE-TAX INCOME TRANSFERS SYSTEM FOR POOR AND MIDDLE CLASS AND TAX EXPENDITURE SYSTEM FOR THE RICH

(Page 30) In essence, we have in Canada two federal support programs of roughly equal value: income transfers for the poor and middle class, and tax expenditures for the rich. The first (federal transfers) benefits the lower-middle class the most, but spreads widely from the very poorest to the very richest. The second (tax expenditures) benefits mainly those at the top, a shadow transfer system for Canada’s rich.

CONCLUSION (Page 31)

The unequal dIstributIon of tax expenditures remains a critically under-examined problem in Canada, particularly given their enormous cost on par with both personal income taxes collected and total federal government transfers and contribution to income inequality. Given the sheer size of these tax expenditures, it is amazing they are not listed as government spending in federal budgets and fiscal updates.

For every dollar moved into one of Canada’s individual tax expenditures, an equivalent amount is foregone in federal revenues. Since there is no cap on many of the most expensive and most regressive tax expenditures, this arrangement skews benefits toward Canada’s richest, who are more likely to have extra money to put aside (for retirement, investments, etc.). Lifetime caps, as exist for the small business capital gains exemption, would help smooth out the distributional inequities in these expenditures and lower costs for government.

Tax expenditures individually are not purposeless. Sometimes they are meant to encourage behaviour, such as saving for retirement. Sometimes, as with the dividend gross-up, they are driven by concerns about equity (the “double taxation” of dividend income in this case), though almost always in the horizontal sense of treating similar people equally under the tax code. The vertical inequity of this measure, 91% of whose benefits go to the richest 10% of Canadians, is totally ignored.

APPENDIX I – METHODOLOGY (Page 33-36)

(Reading this section in its entirety is worthwhile to understand how statistics were used to develop the report – the following is a brief excerpt from the report).

All values in this report are in 2011 dollars. All tax rates, tax expenditure values, transfers and any other values are as they were in 2011 unless otherwise stated….

All distributional analyses in this paper are conducted for individuals 18 and over based on total income before taxes but after transfers, not families. Examining individual distribution may overstate the concentration of people in the bottom deciles, as it will split up families where one spouse earns an income and the other does not. In a situation where the former takes home, say, $1 million annually, they would end up in the top decile while the latter is in the lowest decile in this distribution. This may tend to overstate the destitution of those in the lowest income deciles on an individual basis. However, taxes are evaluated on an individual basis and Canada Revenue Agency data, in particular, is only available on an individual basis. Future research could better examine the distribution of tax expenditures across the family income distribution in Canada…..

Third, economists are particularly concerned about richer tax filers attempting to avoid any tax changes, whether from marginal bracket rate increases or changes in tax expenditures. There is particular concern that wealthy Canadians will migrate, for instance to the U.S., in a “brain drain” response to higher Canadians tax rates. Natural experiments have shown a surprising lack of migration in response to higher top marginal tax rates…..

A more likely reaction to the closure of certain tax expenditures might be an increased use of related alternatives. For instance, if RRSP contributions were no longer tax deductible, wealthy Canadians might switch those contributions to TFSAs, where a tax preference still exists. This switching of moneys between tax expenditures may mean the total cost would not be recovered even if that tax expenditure were completely closed. The more tax expenditures that exist, the more choice there is as any one tax expenditure is closed. However, as fewer tax expenditures exist, the more likely it is that the closure of any additional tax expenditure will lead to the full cost of the tax expenditure being recovered. Behavioural reaction will tend to decrease the overall cost of tax expenditures. Neither the Finance Canada reporting on tax expenditures nor this report attempts to estimate the behavioural reaction to the closure of tax expenditures.

The final possibility for avoiding taxes, besides moving and switching tax expenditures, is simply to avoid them illegally. The solution here is more straightforward: hire more tax auditors to provide better enforcement of the rules that already exist. More disclosure and international co-operation of tax agencies is also critical in closing the potential for abuse in tax havens.

APPENDIX II EXCLUDED TAX EXPENDITURES (Page 41)

Table 4 details tax expenditures that are not analyzed in this report (approximately another 64). In general, these were excluded either because distributional data or else the estimated value of the expenditure were not available. A few expenditures were excluded for other reasons……Finally, as this report only focuses on expenditures related to personal income taxes, expenditures involving businesses were also excluded from the analysis (see the details in Table 4).

HIGHLIGHTING PROBLEMS OF MAXIMUM INDIVIDUAL VALUE RE TRANSFERS VERSUS EXPENDITURES

While income transfers are tightly controlled as to the maximum value a person can receive and who in the income spectrum receives them, many of the most regressive and expensive tax expenditures do not have a maximum individual value. (Page 15-17) There is either an explicit maximum individual benefit or the value is based on another program that itself is capped…..Second, the maximum benefit is paid out in the lower half of the income spectrum and tapers out afterwards.

(Page 18) The first thing that stands out in Figure 2 is the marked difference in distributional impact of Canada’s regressive and progressive tax expenditures. The benefits of the former (regressive) are clearly concentrated in the richest decile, with little or no benefit leaking down even to Canada’s middle-income earners and absolutely nothing for the poorest Canadians. In the latter (progressive) category, benefits generally peaked in the third or fourth deciles, but they also spread beyond this zone, frequently also into the upper deciles.

HOW INCOME IS REPORTED IN THE REPORT – (BLOG AUTHOR’S COMMENT)

A major shortfall of this report is using income deciles based only on individuals.

Information from page 33 states ‘All distributional analyses in this paper are conducted for individuals 18 and over based on total income before taxes but after transfers….. However, taxes are evaluated on an individual basis and Canada Revenue Agency data, in particular, is only available on an individual basis. Future research could better examine the distribution of tax expenditures across the family income distribution in Canada…..”

(Example: Figure 2, Page 19) For the CCPA report it appears income deciles are divided into nine deciles for income from $0 to $84,000 and tenth decile for incomes over $84,000. The sixth decile shows values of $30-$38K, seventh percentile $38-$48K, eighth decile $48-$61K, ninth decile $61-$84K and tenth decile $84K+.

It is possible to obtain some information on income levels for single person and two or more person households from Statistics Canada – Upper income limit, income share and average income by economic family type and income decile (statcan).

In 2016, income single person household reported in constant dollars were total decile income $35,400, sixth decile $31,000, seventh decile $37,700, eighth decile $45,400, ninth decile $57,800 and highest decile $96,800.

In 2016. incomes for two or more person households reported in constant dollars were total deciles $89,600, sixth decile $84,300, seventh decile $97,400, eighth decile $113,600, ninth decile $137,400, and highest decile $211,600.

(Constant dollars refers to dollars of several years expressed in terms of their value (“purchasing power”) in a single year, called the base year income).

The CCPA report uses $84K+ as the dollar value for the tenth decile, whereas, Statistics Canada shows it not possible for single person households to achieve incomes of $84K+ for any of the deciles below and including the ninth decile. Incomes of $84K+ for two or more person households can be achieved in the sixth decile.

Stated another way Statistics Canada (statcan.gc.ca/n1/daily-quotidien) states couples with children had a median after-tax income of $94,500 in 2016, up 5.6% from 2012. Lone-parent families had a median income of $44,600, while couples without children had a median after-tax income of $76,400. Unattached non-seniors had a median after-tax income of $30,400.

Vanier Institute, Modern Family finances published Jan., 2018 states individuals in Canada whose incomes were in the top 10% had a total median before tax income of approximately $93,700 in 2015 ($75,200 after taxes). This represented approximately 3.1 million Canadians in 2015.

The CCPA report states more work needs to done on separating incomes of single person households from two or more person households. From page 28, a more worrying reason is that many of those in the poorest deciles are either single parents or single adults. Almost all of the federal transfer money paid to the poorest two deciles is for child-related benefits and goes mostly to single-parent families where the parent is almost always a woman. For single adults, or adult couples without children who are not seniors, the only available federal transfer is the GST credit, which maxed out at $253 per person in 2011.

Based on the above information on income deciles, more work needs to be done analyzing singles versus family incomes to achieve financial fairness for singles and lone parents.

FINAL COMMENTS BY BLOG AUTHOR

In 2011, 39% of the benefit of all tax loopholes went to the richest 10% while the bottom half of income earners only saw 16% of the benefit.

As stated on page 30, federal transfers benefit the lower-middle class the most, but spreads widely from the very poorest to the very richest. Tax expenditures benefit mainly those at the top, a shadow transfer system for Canada’s rich.

As stated on page 25 of the above report tax expenditures are the same as any other real government spending: they are a fiscal choice governments make and can unmake if they want to. The money that today goes to padding the incomes of Canada’s rich could tomorrow go to eliminating poverty and reducing income inequality.

Also, transfers are tightly controlled since there is a maximum value a person can receive and who receives them. Many of the most regressive and expensive tax expenditures do not have a maximum individual value.

Examining tax expenditures by income inequality alone will not totally solve the inequality problem. Net worth and assets as well as income needs to be included in financial formulas.

The financial inequality that exists between single person households and two or more person households and between poor and wealthy families needs to be addressed through inclusion of net worth and assets, Market Basket Measure and maximum individual value limits in financial formulas. These should be included in an aggregate format, not on an individual basis to reduce distributional inequities.

Wealthy persons should not be receiving tax expenditure monies when they don’t need it. Net worth and Assets added to financial formulas would help to ensure monies are distributed in a graduated format and gradually diminishing to zero for the wealthy.

Market Basket Measure (MBM) (gov.br) should also be used in financial formulas to ensure financial equality based on number of person in households so that marital status bias with and without children is excluded. It costs more for singles to live than two person households without children. This 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.

Pension income splitting, a blatantly financial discriminatory program against single person households, was implemented in 2006 by the Conservatives, specifically Stephen Harper. Market Basket Measure shows it costs singles more to live, so why was pension splitting given to married or coupled households and to be used by primarily wealthy couples?

Maximum individual value limits on tax expenditures gradually reduced to zero for the wealthy would ensure financial equality and fairness. Tax Free Savings Accounts (TFSA) were introduced in 2008, again by Conservatives, namely Stephen Harper. This has to be one of the most egregiously discriminatory programs against singles and the poor. It is possible for the wealthy to have huge net worth and assets and low incomes excluding huge TFSA investment amounts which do not need to be declared as income. They can then claim poverty and receive OSA without clawbacks, and even possibly the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) which is supposed to be a poverty reduction program for the very poor. Lifetime caps, as exist for some small business formulas, would help smooth out financial inequities between the poor and the wealthy and lower costs for government.

Many regressive tax expenditures have been implemented by Conservatives (some also by the Liberals). The Conservatives always talk about cutting taxes, but never talk about balancing tax cuts with reduction of tax expenditures and benefits for the wealthy.

The Liberal Party to their credit has reduced or eliminated Tax Expenditures for both business and personal financial systems. On the personal tax side they refused to implement Conservative proposal for personal income splitting and increasing TFSA contributions from $5,500 to $10,000 per person. They have also eliminated Child Arts and Child Fitness Tax Credits. On the business tax side (businesses were not addressed in the CCPA report), the Liberals have addressed financial inequalities in income splitting (“sprinkling”) and passive income.

Business income splitting (“sprinkling”) allows some families to use private corporations to sprinkle income among family members to spouse and/or children who are often in lower tax brackets than the primary owner/manager and thus the family’s total tax bill would be reduced.

For example, one of the changes means beneficiaries of business income splitting have to be actively engaged in the business and work in the business at least an average of 20 hours per week. Since singles in their financial circle are basically financially responsible to themselves (no spouse, no children), “income sprinkling’” is of no benefit to single marital status entrepreneurs so they will pay more tax. Tax fairness needs to be ensured regardless of marital status and how income is earned.

In short, the new rules for passive income mean that once a private corporation builds up multi-million dollar passive investment assets, its business income will no longer qualify for the federal small business tax rate (which is being lowered to 9 per cent), and instead be taxed at the regular corporate tax rate (which is 15 per cent). The amount of business income that qualifies for the small business tax rate would be reduced depending on how much annual passive income is declared above $50,000 — and eliminated completely once passive income rises above $150,000.

Political parties concerned about social justice (Liberals and NDP) need to be more vocal about regressive tax expenditures and why changes are needed to promote income and tax equity.

https://canadafactcheck.ca/tax-fairness/ Excerpts from article “Will federal tax review lay the groundwork for real tax reform in the next budget?”. Links have been removed, links may be reviewed in article online.

While little known to the general public, the review is of enormous importance. Every year, Ottawa spends about $110 billion on programs such as health transfers to the provinces, the Canada Pension Plan, Employment Insurance, and other line item programs that comprise the federal budget. These expenditures, as with all direct spending, are put before Parliament for examination. Through this “Estimates” process, information on the costs and impact of these programs is available to the public.

Far less visible and transparent is the roughly $100 billion the federal government forgoes annually in so-called “tax expenditures”. These exemptions, deductions, credits, rebates and surtaxes are not subjected to the same kinds of parliamentary accountability mechanisms that are applied to more direct government spending. Moreover, many of these expenditures (including all exemptions and deductions), while legally embodied in the federal tax code, have huge implications for the fiscal situation of the provinces in that they also define the tax “base” against which all personal and corporate income taxes are levied at the provincial level.

Given the sheer scale of these tax expenditures, there is a strong argument for subjecting this hidden tax spending to the same oversight and public debate as any other spending. This is especially true given just how regressive (i.e. favouring the affluent) many of these expenditures are. If the government wants to provide billions of dollars in tax breaks to the richest Canadians, it should have an obligation to justify these gifts to the vast majority of Canadians who don’t benefit from such largesse.

The last comprehensive evaluation of the federal tax system was the Carter Commission of 1966. It’s clearly time to take a top to bottom look at our tax system to see if it is the truly progressive system the public deserves.

Exactly who benefits from these tax expenditures?

While the true magnitude of federal tax expenditures remains somewhat murky, what we do know is cause for concern. For example, a recent report from the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives (CCPA) shows that, while some of these measures benefit the general population, many others benefit most those who need help the least. In fact, of the 64 tax breaks on which solid data are available, all but five provide more benefit to the top half of earners than to the bottom.

In particular, the three most regressive loopholes (the stock option deduction, the dividend gross-up, and the partial inclusion of capital gains), give enormous breaks to the very rich without doing much for the majority. According to the Department of Finance, these expenditures alone cost a combined $12 billion annually – more than enough to pay for, say, a national pharmacare program.

Here’s a brief look at the “Big 3” regressive tax expenditures that overwhelmingly benefit rich Canadians.

The stock option deduction is an offshoot of the 50% capital gains inclusion rate (see below) and cost the federal treasury $840 million in 2016. It is for employees who, as part of their compensation, are given the option to buy company stock at a set price (e.g., today’s price). If the stock rises in the future, an employee can still buy the stock at their set price, but sell it at the going price and generate a capital gain equal to the difference between the two prices. As with capital gains, only 50% of the price difference from a stock option transaction of this sort is taxable, and there is no threshold above which the government taxes 100% of the capital gain.

Another regressive tax expenditure is the dividend gross-up and tax credit. With an annual cost to government of $4.64 billion in 2016, it is also one of the most expensive. This tax expenditure is extremely concentrated, with 91% of the benefit going to income earners in the richest decile. But, again, the decile analysis actually understates the concentration. A paper by Brian Murphy, Mike Veall, and Michael Wolfson estimate half of all benefits actually go to the top 1%. Corporations pay corporate income tax on their profits, which can be paid out as a dividend to shareholders.

A third extremely regressive tax expenditure is the partial inclusion of capital gains which cost the government $6.68 billion in 2016. The tax expenditure for partial inclusion of capital gains applies to an individual who buys a stock or other asset at one price and subsequently sells it for more, realizing a “capital gain” in the amount of the difference between the two prices. It is only the capital gain, and not the entire sale price, that is eligible for taxation. And thanks to this tax expenditure, only 50% of the value of that capital gain is considered taxable income.

With 92% of the benefits going to the top 10% — and very little for anyone earning less than $84,000 — the concentration of benefits related to the partial inclusion of capital gains is similar to that for the dividend gross-up. However, additional analysis by Murphy et al. shows the concentration of this tax expenditure is much worse than a decile analysis suggests. In fact, the very richest 1% of tax filers reap 87% of the benefits.

Is there the political will to scale back capital gains related tax expenditures?

There is also a question as to whether the Trudeau government has the political will to really crack down on the most regressive expenditures given that there are powerful employer and financial interests supporting them.

For example, upon being installed as finance minister, Finance Minister Bill Morneau declared tax fairness his top priority. Yet his record on the issue is mixed. He at first vowed to close the loophole on executive stock options (a Liberal Platform item), perhaps the most objectionable such tax break, but then changed his mind under heavy industry pressure.

The challenge for Morneau is that the government has also promised to make Canada more innovative and attractive to investors. Some supporters of an innovation agenda argue that capital gains taxes hurt innovation by limiting the amount of money in the economy that is free to be re-invested in new projects. There are also numerous voices warning federal Liberals to rein in any proposed tax-the-rich agenda in light of plans by the Trump Administration and the Republican controlled Congress to dramatically reduce personal and business taxes.

On the other hand, policy experts who are concerned with income inequality see tightening up investment-related tax expenditures as a key target given that it is primarily higher-income Canadians who have the means to generate significant additional revenue from investments.

Do we really need regressive tax expenditures to spur innovation and growth?

The argument that tax related investment incentives are required to spur innovation and growth has many doubters – and not just amongst those concerned with inequality. These “pro-growth” critics of the exemptions argue that it is strategic government leadership and public investments that are most critical to building innovative economies. These critics also argue that what is needed it to build on the work being done by publicly funded bodies such as the National Research Council.

In support of this view, the influential UK economist Mariana Mazzucato has shown that publicly funded research as well as direct support for strategic corporate investments through agencies like Defense Advanced Research Projects Agency (DARPA), have been central to the growth of innovative capacity in the United States. Corporate research and development and venture capital often follow in the wake of ground-breaking public sector entrepreneurship.

Mazzucato’s book, The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths, cites impressive evidence in support of this thesis. For example, the parts of the smartphone that make it smart—GPS, touch screens, the Internet—were advanced by the U. S. Defense Department. Tesla’s battery technologies and solar panels came out of a grant from the U.S. Department of Energy. Google’s search engine algorithm was boosted by a National Science Foundation innovation. Many innovative new drugs have come out of the U.S.’s National Institute for Health (NIH) research.

Many innovation experts agree that there is plenty of room to expand direct public investments to compensate for any scaling back of private capital gains incentives. These experts suggest that strategic long-term public investments need to be made across- a much broader range of sectors than is currently the case……

Where does pension fund investment fit in? See article for details.

What are the options for real tax reform?

It goes without saying that there are many options on a continuum somewhere between getting rid of the Big 3 exemptions entirely (an extremely unlikely scenario regardless of which party forms the government) and maintaining a status quo in which the rich get almost all the benefits.

…..focus on practical measures that could scale back the stock option and partial capital gains exemption. With regard to the stock option deduction, the Department of Finance estimates that 8,000 high-income Canadians deduct an average of $400,000 from their taxable incomes via stock options. This accounts for 75% of the deduction’s fiscal impact, which was $840-million in 2016. Most of these 8,000 high-income earners have stock options built into their compensation packages and take advantage of these stock option provisions on a reoccurring basis. Needless to say, only a minority of those who exercise stock options in this manner are employed by a start-up – the ostensible reason for allowing stock options in the first place. There are a number of approaches to stock option deductions that would let the federal government reduce the extreme regressiveness of the deduction, while not penalizing Canada’s startup community.

One approach would be for the federal government to provide a one-time only $750,000 exemption on stock options. This would treat stock options in the same way as one-time capital gains for shares held in a Canadian-controlled private corporation (CCPC) for at least two years.

The $750,000 exemption gives stock option holders significant financial benefits and, at the same time, eliminates a policy that allows well-compensated executives (such as those at Canada’s large banks and insurance companies) to exercise options on a regular basis without any limits.

For startups, a $750,000 exemption is attractive because it is large enough to use as a recruitment tool in a market where there is intense competition for talent…..

There is also plenty of room to gradually phase in an increased capital gains inclusion rate. Such a phased-in increase would be entirely consistent with the history of the exemption. From 1972 to 1988, Canadians had to pay tax on 50 per cent of their capital gains. The inclusion rate was increased to 66 2/3 per cent in 1988, rose to 75 per cent in 1990, before dropping back down to 66 2/3 per cent on Feb. 28, 2000 and then further reduced on Oct. 18, 2000 to 50 per cent, where it has remained to this day.

In other words, a five-year phase-in of an increase in the inclusion rate to 75% (i.e. a 5%/yr. increase) would be just another “up” phase in the ongoing ups and downs in the inclusion rate since the introduction of a capital gains tax in 1972. Certainly no reason for investors to panic!

And keep in mind that, under these proposals, some capital gains would remain entirely tax-free, such as the gain on the principal residence or the gain where appreciated publicly-traded securities are donated to a registered charity.

Conclusion

In the coming budget, the federal government has a historic opportunity to undertake truly progressive tax reform that will finally bring a measure of fairness to Canada’s convoluted tax code. If done properly, the tax expenditure review currently being undertaken will present strong evidence that in the name of fairness, the extraordinarily regressive capital gains related tax expenditures can be scaled back somewhat and that public and pension fund investment can make a growing contribution to Canada’s growth and innovation performance.

The opportunity is there – but will the Trudeau government seize the moment? (End of reproduced article)

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

AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, SINGLES AND THE POOR

Posted on December 6, 2016 by ffswpadmin

AFFORDABLE HOUSING FOR VULNERABLE POPULATIONS, SINGLES AND THE POOR

(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.)

The following discussion (about 15 pages in length) on affordable housing was submitted in response to a request for input to a national survey on affordable housing. The link for ‘Let’s Talk Housing’ survey is included at the end of this post.

It appears that some of points from this discussion were included in the final results of the survey such as

Including singles in definition of family by using specific wording of “individuals and families” not just “families”
Including affordable housing as a human rights issue
Including quality of life such as laundry facilities.

Issues that appear to not having been addressed are single seniors having own bedroom and bathroom that doesn’t cost more for them than for married or coupled seniors.

There still seems to be a mentality for seniors to age in place even with expensive houses that they can’t afford (tax credits on home renovations and assistance in paying house taxes). Those with considerable net worth and assets should be excluded from housing subsidies of any kind.

NATIONAL AFFORDABLE HOUSING STRATEGY

TO: National Housing Strategy Team, Canadian Mortgage and Housing Corp., 700 Montreal Road, Ottawa, ON K1A 0P7

To Whom It May Concern:

First of all, thank you for the opportunity to respond to your housing strategy. In this response, two categories that have been identified will be addressed – Affordable Housing and Vulnerable populations.

CATEGORY – AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Blog “financial fairness for singles.ca” talks about affordable housing. One of the reasons for unaffordable housing is what author calls UPSIDE DOWN HOUSING. Excerpt from blog is as follows:

UPSIDE DOWN HOUSING

Why does it seem more difficult for individuals/singles and low income persons to purchase affordable housing? For possible reasons why, consider the following scenarios.

One example, condos presently being developed in Calgary by a developer in one housing complex includes 1 bed, 1 bath, 1 patio micro-condos of 552 sq. ft. with starting price of $299,900. Two patio, 2 bed, 2 full bath, 2 story 1232 sq. ft. condos were already sold out so price not available. Then there are 2 patio, 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 2 and 3 story 1830 sq. ft. condos priced from $649,900 to $749,900. Apparently, ultra-deluxe model has master bedroom suite covering entire third 600 sq. ft. floor. The third floor bedroom is bigger than total square footage of $299,900 condo. When price per square foot is calculated, micro-condo is selling for $543 per sq. ft. while three bed condos are selling from $355 to $409 per sq. ft.

So who is more likely to buy micro-condos? Possibly low income couples, single parent with one child, or environmentally conscious, and probably an individual/single person. Who gets to pay $150 to $200 more per square foot for two-thirds less space? Ripple effects are owners of micro-condos have to proportionately pay more house taxes, education taxes, mortgage interest and real estate fees on less house and less take home pay for biggest lifetime expense. When it is sold, will seller recoup buying price?

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.

To further magnify the issue, lottery in major northern Alberta city has first grand lottery prize of $2,092,000 for 6,490 sq. ft. house ($322 per sq. ft.), second grand prize of $1,636,000 for 5,103 sq. ft. house ($321 per sq. ft.), and third grand prize of $1,558,000 for 5,097 sq. ft. house ($306 per sq. ft.). First house has elevator, games/theatre area, kid’s lounge, gym, and music room. Second house has hockey arena with bleacher seating, lounge and bar. Third house has spa, gym, yoga studio, juice bar and media room. The wealthy get all the extras and pay only $306 per square foot. This is upside down housing. Need anything more be said about the wealthy? They usually get more while paying less and acquiring choicest spots. (Another example is penthouse suites that sell for proportionately less dollars per square foot than a small condo unit on lower floors of a building).

Average square footage of Canadian house is 1950 sq. ft. (2010) so how can a developer socially, morally and ethically justify charging $150 to $200 more per square foot for two-thirds less space? “CREB now”, Aug. 28 to Sept. 3, 2015, page A5, talks about Calgary developer selling 440 sq. ft. condos in north inner city tower for $149,000 ($339 per sq. ft.) in 2012 and 440 sq. ft. condos in south inner city tower for $219,000 ($498 per sq. ft.) in 2015. Two and three hundred sq. ft. condos are now being sold in Vancouver and Toronto for around $250,000 ($1250 and $833 per sq. ft. respectively). In many cases salaries for low income and singles has not risen to same level, nor has Canadian housing prices for the middle class and rich ($400,000 and up).

How is any of this different than loan-sharking or pay day loans where targeting of the most vulnerable occurs? Does no one see a pattern here where the wealthy pay $300 to $400 per square foot, but singles and poor families are forced to live in smaller spaces while paying more per square foot for them?

Further financial unfairness occurs when individual/single homeowners without children are forced to pay education taxes, but parents pay only fixed rate based on value of their home regardless of number of children. For ‘nineteen kids and counting’ it is possible parents are only paying a few cents a day for their children’s education. Some married/partnered seniors with kids are looking to have education tax payments eliminated from their house taxes. For families with children, logic implies parents should pay education tax throughout their entire lifetimes, or individuals/singles without kids should not have to pay education tax ever. However, families don’t seem to be able to apply financial logic of their own finances equally to the financial realities of their single children. And, many families do not want to pay school fees.

There are many more examples of financial unfairness, but just the above few show how financial world for low-income families and individuals/singles has been completely flipped upside down and topsy-turvy. Have governments, society, and our publicly and privately funded education systems failed us so miserably and family/corporate greed taken over with critical thinking, social/ethical responsible thinking sinking to all-time lows? Since when is it okay under present financial system for families to accumulate wealth and huge inheritances while their low income and single children are not able to support themselves on a day to day basis?

Young individuals/singles not yet married are facing huge financial hurdles because of low incomes, less full time jobs, enormous education debt, and out of control housing costs. Families (parents), governments, society, corporations, businesses to date have failed to provide support and responsibility that is needed to ensure all Canadian citizens are able to financially take care of themselves without financial parental aid, inheritances of parents and without bias of gender, race or marital status.

In this so called civilized, enlightened country of ours, it appears that citizens of value are only upper middle-income families and the wealthy while individuals/singles with and without children are being annihilated from financial, political, and everyday living scenes (MADE INVISIBLE). If families have such high family values, shouldn’t family values and moral social values take precedence instead of being trumped by almighty dollar greed and philosophy of charging what the market can bear and more?

Low income families, individuals/singles and young adults not yet married who can apply simple math and critical thinking skills are in financial despair and angst knowing that they, as the most vulnerable citizens of this country, have been targeted and pawned to pay more for housing than middle class families and the wealthy. It is the duty of politicians elected by the people, for the people to represent all Canadian citizens, not just vote getting middle class families.

OUTSIDE THE BOX SOLUTIONS FOR PRICING OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Solution 1 – for a housing complex as identified in the above outrageous pricing example, prices should be set where the base price of the unit with the smallest square footage cannot be more than the base price of the unit with largest square footage within the complex. Any changes and upgrades by the buyer would be added to the base price. (In the above example the base price of the 552 square foot condo could only be $355 per square foot to match the cheapest price of the biggest per square foot unit in the complex). Should there be laws and fines applied for these outrageous prices?

Solution 2 – Charges for house taxes, education taxes, and real estate fees should be balanced between square footage and price of the housing unit? Where housing prices follow a fair pricing formula as shown in Solution 1, this could provide financial fairness where fees are based on largest unit and become proportionately less on smaller units.

Solution 3– charge a fee such as a carbon tax fee for units greater than a certain number of square feet. For example, allow a maximum size of 2500 square ft. for a housing unit (assumption is that there is no need for excessive amounts of square footage in housing). For anything greater than 2500 square feet, charge an extra fee to the buyer with an incremental increase in the fee for every additional 500 square feet of space. (The wealthy have been paying less and getting more square footage while using non-renewable resources plus water at an alarming rate, i.e. 5000 square foot log cabin using twelve logging trucks filled with harvested logs and a showhome that has seventeen sinks). The monies collected from these fees could be used to build more affordable housing.

As stated in a recent real estate article, Watermark, a deluxe complex in Calgary is selling an ‘inspired’ (so stated in article) 8,644 sq. ft. estate home and its guest house for $3.45 million or $399 per square foot which is less per square feet than 600 square foot condo mentioned above. Article goes on to say that beyond homes, Watermark garners interest with both natural and manmade beauty. It has 17 cascading ponds and more than five kilometers of interconnected walking and bike trails. Then there’s the central plaza with its 1,000 sq. ft. pavilion, kitchen, barbecues, a sports field and NBA-sized basketball court. One family’s daughter is looking forward to booking the plaza and using the outdoor kitchen for her birthday party. The family goes on to state that space between homes and low density was also very important so they weren’t looking into someone’s back yard. This same complex has a show home with 17 sinks.

Another real estate article talks about another family with three children moving from 1900 sq. ft. house to a 2,837 sq. ft. house with price starting from $900,000s. They are moving because they need more room for the kids as they grow. Their new house will provide 567 sq. ft. per person at a starting price of approximately $317 per sq. ft. Yet again other articles state that owners are happy they don’t have condos in their backyard (NIMBYism) and their children can experience nature from their own bedrooms.

Further advice usually given by married people states singles can live with someone else if they can’t afford housing 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 dignity and respect for singles (and low income families). Attainable Housing http://www.attainyourhome.com/, 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 without dependent children living in the home. Living Wage for Guelph and Wellington livingwagecanada allows singles dignity of one bedroom apartment and a living wage income that is 44% of a family of 4 income and 62% of a family of two (parent and child).

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 and 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.

Above mentioned blog has also tried to attach lost dollars that singles face directly every date in relation to married and coupled family units with and without children. The following lost dollar value is in relationship to housing.

LOST DOLLARS VALUE LIST

For a 700 square foot condo where price is $50 more per square foot than lowest price of largest condo in complex, it can be assumed that the purchaser will be paying $35,000 more than purchaser’s base price of largest condo, if the price per square foot is $100 more per square foot then purchaser will be paying be paying $70,000 more, if the price per square foot is $150 more per square foot then purchaser will be paying $105,000 more and so on. The amount of house and education taxes, real estate fees and mortgage interest will also incrementally increase.

Our Lost Dollar Value List in blog (lost-dollar-value) – when lost dollar value for real estate is added to the list, $50 was used as the example not including gestimate loss for taxes and real estate fees, interest charges based on $50.00 per sq. ft.

APPROPRIATE HOUSING DEFINITION

Singles are often told they can always go ‘live with someone’ if they have problems with affordable housing. The CMHC should be aware of the following definition of appropriate housing. Housing dignity and respect as well as quality of life according to this definition specifies that singles deserve a bedroom of their own. (One bedroom actually meaning one bedroom, not just a murphy bed in a 200 square foot condo, shows dignity and respect for singles). It is the belief of this author that appropriate housing for a senior single means senior singles deserve a bedroom and a bathroom of their own. After working for forty years for their country without the marital manna benefits given to married or coupled family units, senior singles deserve at least this much.

Appropriate Housing definition is stated as follows – Under the Social Housing Accommodation Regulation (alberta page 11), such housing is considered overcrowded if more than two people must share a bedroom, with at least one individual in each of the other bedrooms, and if an individual over 18 “must share a bedroom with another member of the household,” or someone over the age of five has to share a bedroom with “an individual of the opposite sex.” (Spouses or partners sharing a bedroom don’t count)…..”Affordable housing is intended to be appropriate housing-appropriate to needs of families. If children age in place or additional children are welcomed into a family, they can transfer within the system…subject to availability.”

Blog “financialfairnessforsingles.ca”also addresses psychological impact where appropriate. The following discusses the psychological impact for housing.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT

There seems to be very little understanding of the psychological impact that decision makers and policy makers have on singles regarding housing.

Many families live in houses where their young children have separate bedrooms, and likewise, there is a trend towards ‘man caves’ and ‘she sheds’ so family members can have ‘alone’ time, but when children become single adults, singles are consistently told that they can live with someone if they have financial problems with housing while paying more.

And, of course, singles never have claustrophobia, so it is okay to stick them in small spaces for which they have to pay more. And singles never have problems with noise, so it is okay for them to live in small units in less desirable areas close to airports and railway tracks, etc. (As one single person moving from one unit to another stated in a real estate article “I was very impressed with the pricing and the fact that they’re doing concrete floors and walls “. Concrete is said to restrict noise. “I work on Saturday mornings and a lot of people like to stay up a little later on Friday and Saturday nights”. With thinner walls, he adds, it is easier to hear “people in the hallways coming and going. It is not the end of the end of the world, by any means, but I am looking forward to something quieter above and below”. But for this person, the decision was less about sound and more about getting something larger, with better specifications and closer to work-moving from 615 sq. ft. two bedroom condo to 715 sq. ft. two bedroom condo. “The bedrooms are a little bit bigger with an ensuite. I really liked that and I liked the fact that it has a washer and dryer so I don’t have to go to the laundromat.”

Singles deserve same standard of living as married/coupled persons, i.e. having washer and dryer in their own home instead of having to go down a dark hall or to basement in complex to do laundry or paying outrageous prices per load at a laundromat.

When reading or listening to articles on housing for families, families will always talk about how important their housing is for them in regards to creating memories for their children, entertaining and maintaining close ties to friends and families, but apparently adult singles don’t have friends and families or dreams, so it is okay for them to live in micro condos, some as small as 200 square feet, where it is pretty much impossible to entertain or have friends and families stay with them except maybe by having a bunk bed chained from the ceiling.

SOLUTION

Singles and low income persons need to become more aware of financial unfairness by taking pricing down to the lowest common denominator, i.e. price per square foot and speak out about the financial atrocities being directed towards them. They need to start questioning why they are being targeted to pay more while getting less. (While it is recognized that it is expensive to raise children, adult to adult it is also unfair to make one segment of the population like singles and the disadvantaged pay more than another segment).

By your own definition in ‘Let’s Talk Housing”, you state -” Zoning by-laws that encourage affordable, mixed-income and mixed-tenure communities are one way to ensure the inclusion of all Canadians in a variety of social, economic and cultural opportunities”. So how about putting ‘money where your mouth is’ and eliminating financial housing discrimination for singles and the poor that is upside-down and by truly making the wealthy pay their fair share?

CATEGORY- VULNERABLE POPULATIONS

SINGLES/INDIVIDUALS ARE RARELY INCLUDED IN FINANCIAL DISCUSSIONS AND FORMULAS

By your own definition in ‘Let’s Talk Housing”, you state vulnerable populations include seniors, persons with disabilities, victims of domestic violence, newcomers, homeless, lone parent families, indigenous households, youth, veterans.

Why are singles never included today in financial discussions and formulas? Families are only mentioned. What this means is that singles are discriminated against by virtue of exclusion and invisibility. As stated by your definition in sentence above, singles are not included except if they fall into categories of disabilities, homeless, or youth. Into which of these populations do singles between the ages of 25 and 65 fall? Your own definition of vulnerable populations does not include them.

SINGLES ARE INAPPROPRIATELY CLASSIFIED

Singles are inappropriately classified when the ‘catch-all’ word ‘singles’ is used to include single parents, widowers, ever singles (never married, no kids), early in life divorced and late in life divorced singles all in one word. Canada Revenue Agency has clear definitions for singles and widowed persons. Yet, financial planners, government agencies, businesses often consider widowed people to be singles when they are not. Single parents do get some government transfer benefits, which is as it should be. Widowed persons are given benefits, while ever singes are rarely given any benefits except in abject poverty. Widowed persons are more likely to own their own homes and have more net worth than ever singles. Early in life divorced persons are less likely to be able to accumulate net worth and wealth than late in life divorced persons.

Blog article “False assumptions – ‘Four Ways Senior Singles Lose Out’ – December 2, 2015” is a perfect example of how a financial analyst has inappropriately talked about singles in his article when he is actually talking about widowed persons. Widowed persons are often perceived to have more social value simply because they were married and have produced children in comparison never married singles and early in life divorced singles without and without children. This discrimination often leads to never married and early divorced in life singles being left out of financial decisions because they have been made to be invisible.

FINANCIAL ILLITERACY AND IRRESPONSIBLE CONCLUSIONS OF DECISION MAKERS IN HOUSING SOLUTION

Who Really Owns Homes

In your information, you say 69% of Canadians own their own homes, but what you don’t say is the majority of home ownership is by married or coupled family units. The sad reality is that singles are less likely to own their own homes because they simply can’t afford it. You say that seniors are a part of the vulnerable population. In reality, senior singles (not widowed persons and married or coupled persons) are more likely to be part of the vulnerable population.

According to Statistics Canada 2011 articles “Living Arrangements of Seniors” and “Homeownership and Shelter Costs in Canada” (12.statcan) and (12.statcan.gc) ‘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).

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’.

We are going to repeat this statement again: 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’. This very statement reinforces the fact that singles need to be included in the definition of vulnerable populations.

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 when they have financial difficulties.

Seniors who own their homes want to remain in their homes as long as possible versus renters

You state in your information that seniors want to remain in their homes as long as possible. You also state renters, on the other hand, can benefit from lower monthly costs and more flexibility when they want to move.

Several comments – there are many seniors who have huge net worth in their homes, can’t afford to live in them, and yet want to remain in them. They have such a sense of entitlement that they are seeking help with paying house taxes, and now politicians are looking to give them financial help with upgrading their homes. The above statements show no regard for the psychological impact of renting for singles and the poor. Just how long do you think renters should stay in one place – ten, twenty, thirty years- for example, as seniors without renovations and upgrades taking place in their rental units? The likely answer that you and everyone else will give to this is that they can always move. Moving in psychological impact is stressful, plus moving is expensive (your statement regarding ‘flexibility to move for renters’ is a negative, not a positive).

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 education 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 education property taxes as seniors, then homeowners who have never had kids should not have to pay education taxes throughout their entire lives.

Financial analysts and decision makers have in their end points created such a sense of entitlement and greed that many believe home equity should not be treated as an asset and, even more ludicrous, as a retirement asset.

Blog post ‘Continued Financial Illiteracy and Creation of Financial Silos Benefitting Married/Coupled Persons Equals Financial Discrimination of Senior Singles-Part 2 of 2’ (part-2-of-2) is author’s response to one such article: 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” (broadbentinstitute)

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)’.

(blog author’s response to this statement) ‘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’.

Singles with mortgage or rent face serious financial obstacles regardless of what age they are. Young are facing outrageous housing and mortgage costs. Senior singles who have to rent face serious quality of life issues when their rent is beyond what they can afford. Also, financial analysts state that most singles cannot have a mortgage and save at the same time, they only can do one or the other.

What some politicians’ and other responses have been so far

Blog author has been blogging about financial discrimination of singles for almost a year and has been attempting to contact government and politicians regarding this issue. Here are a couple of absurd responses received so far (none have been positive).

One politician said that if singles are having problems with affordable housing, they can seek assistance. Community Housing in Alberta is a subsidized rental program, but to qualify assets and belongings cannot exceed $7,000. Really, $7,000? (Assets in pension funds, registered retirement savings plans, or registered retirement income funds are not included in calculation of assets. So this means, subsidized housing can be given to those with considerable assets). Another answer stated that maybe charitable and social agencies need to include singles in assistance that is already provided to low income persons and single parent families. Really? This is another slap in face answer that does nothing to solve the affordability housing problem for singles.

Singles continually get told by married or coupled persons that singles can go live with someone if they have problems with being able to afford housing. At a session on affordable and inclusive housing, blog author was told as much by one gentleman from around Springbank (one of most expensive areas to live in Canada) who was so proud that he was able to winter every year in Arizona.

When reading or listening to articles on housing for families, families will always talk about how important their housing is for them in regards to entertaining and maintaining close ties to friends and families. They talk about about how their ‘hearts are eternally and inexplicably changed’ when bearing their children, but same hearts appear to become ‘hearts of stone’ when these same children become adult singles, low income or no income persons and families.

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

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

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

Single employables (singles and single parents) deserve the same financial dignity and respect as married/coupled persons with and without children. Singles and single parents (white, aboriginal and of immigrant status) deserve to be included in financial formulas at the same level as married or coupled persons with and without children.

Financial discrimination of singles is accepted in mainstream and is, indeed, celebrated. Article like “It Pays To Be Married” (marrying-for-money-pays-off) implies married/coupled persons and families are more financially responsible. From “Ten Events in Personal Financial Decathlon Success” (financialpost), 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!

CONCLUSION

It is morally, ethically and socially reprehensible and irresponsible when government, businesses and families don’t recognize singles and continue to violate one of the basic principles of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need, that is shelter.
It is morally, ethically and socially reprehensible and irresponsible when government, businesses and families don’t recognize singles and continue to violate what has been deemed by international organizations to be a violation of the Human Rights of all Canadian Citizens, that is housing.

(From Wikipedia) “The right to housing is recognised in a number of international human rights instruments. Article 25 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights recognises the right to housing as part of the right to an adequate standard of living. It states that:

“

Everyone has the right to a standard of living adequate for the health and well-being of himself and of his family, including food, clothing, housing and medical care and necessary social services, and the right to security in the event of unemployment, sickness, disability, widowhood, old age or other lack of livelihood in circumstances beyond his control.

”

Article 11(1) of the International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (ICESCR) also guarantees the right to housing as part of the right to an adequate standard of living.

In international human rights law the right to housing is regarded as a freestanding right. This was clarified in the 1991 General Comment no 4 on Adequate Housing by the UN Committee on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights. The general comment provides an authoritative interpretation of the right to housing in legal terms under international law.”

OTHER CONSIDERATIONS

It is morally, ethically and socially reprehensible and irresponsible when government, businesses and families continue to be uneducated (illiterate)and completely unaware of what it costs singles to live in comparison to families in relation to equivalence scales.
It is morally, ethically and socially reprehensible and irresponsible when government, businesses and families discriminate based on marital status. Discrimination based on marital status is a also a violation of human and civil rights.
It is morally, ethically and socially reprehensible and irresponsible when government, businesses and families continue to exclude singles from financial formulas and housing solutions. Singles need to be included in all financial formulas.
Equivalence scales (equivalence-scales-in-relation-to-cost-of-living) – if there anything that is can be so eye-opening in describing how financially disadvantaged singles are in comparison to families for cost of living, it is equivalence scales. Member of National Housing Survey need to educate themselves in this regard.
Real estate fees have reached an outrageous level of unaffordability. These fees, in addition to outrageous housing prices, need to be addressed.

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. Singles who have worked for forty years, never used EI and helped to support families through wedding and baby gifts, education taxes and other taxes so that families can have maternity and parental benefits, child benefits, widow and survivor benefits, etc. deserve same financial respect as families. Singles never get any thanks and are never recognized for their contributions. The only benefits singles ever receive is if they are in abject poverty. Singles are not asking for more financial benefits than families, but equivalency to family benefits as applicable as shown in equivalence scales. They deserve this as citizens of this country.

Quite frankly, with all the rhetoric, surveys, solutions and bafflegab, this author is very pessimistic and believes CMHC and others involved in this project are going to fail, and will fail miserably. Unaffordable housing will not be resolved UNLESS THE MINIMUM WAGE IS RAISED TO A LIVING WAGE AND TO A LIVING WAGE THAT IS INDEXED TO INFLATION. Success will only be achieved if innovative solutions AND a living wage occur simultaneously. Everything that occurred in the last decade by government, businesses, and families in regards to financial solutions has benefitted only the upper middle class families, not singles and the poor. (Blog post on CPP enhancements, August 31, 2016 further supports how lack of minimum wage and schizophrenic programs further discriminate against singles and the poor-CPP a federal program while minimum wage is a provincial program).

List of some of the blog posts regarding housing and financial discrimination of singles and the poor:

False assumptions – ‘Four Ways Senior Singles Lose Out’ (false-assumptions)- December 2, 2015 -describes how one financial analyst shows singles lose out on married or coupled family unit tax advantages, lose out on tax and pension systems tilted to benefit couples, lose out on benefits, face higher tax bill, and face OAS recovery tax. The sad fact is that this financial analyst was talking about widowed persons, not ever singles.
Senior Singles pay more – Parts 1 to 4 – December 5 (senior-singles), Dec. 9 (part-2), Dec. 12 (part-3), and Dec. 22, 2015 (part-4), – show the many ways that senior singles pay more and get less over their married or coupled family unit counterparts.
To rent or own affordable housing – that is the question January 10, 2016 (to-rent-or-own-affordable-housing)
Continued Financial illiteracy of financial gurus equals financial discrimination of singles – Part 2 February 28, 2016 (financial-illiteracy) – blog author’s perspective on yet another financial analyst (Broadbent Institute) providing incomplete facts about what it costs singles to live, inappropriate classification of singles, and not including home equity as a retirement asset.
Incomplete reporting of news and media articles promote financial inequality of singles to married/coupled persons March 24, 2016 (financial-inequality-of-singles-to-marriedcoupled-persons) – inability to say the word ‘single’ or ‘individual’ promotes financial discrimination of singles.
Lost dollar value list to date – April 10, 2016 lost-dollar-value-list) (attached table – please see article for full description of items)
Singles deserve affordable housing and financial fairness for singles April 13, 2016 (singles-deserve-affordable-housing)– talks about a San Francisco single person who created a private sleeping space in the living room of an apartment he shares with other roommates (one bedroom apartments rent for $3,670 a month). He sleeps in a wooden box (he calls it a ‘pod’) that is eight feet long, four and a half feet tall and probably about five or six feet wide)
Rental or affordable housing – misconceptions about psychological impact on singles April 20, 2016 (affordable)
Real financial lives of singles April 24, 2016 (real-financial-lives-of-singles-and-financial-discrimination-of-singles) – shows financial profiles of three married or coupled family units and three ‘singles’ from various backgrounds
Homelessness in Canada bigger problem for singles and poor single parent families May 23, 2016 (homelessness-in-canada-bigger-problem) – study on single employables comprised of singles and single parents and how they are having a very difficult time surviving on low wages and lack of affordable housing
Affordable housing not party of Conservative Party definition July 17, 2016 (affordable-housing-not-part-of-conservative-party-definition) – appropriate housing definition and how Conservative party after 40 year reign in Alberta contributed very little to affordable housing during the oil boom)
Improper definition of single status promotes financial discrimination August 7, 2016 (improper-definition-of-single-status-promotes-financial-discrimination)
Equivalence scales August 17, 2016 (equivalence-scales-in-relation-to-cost-of-living see article for further description of scales and application in Canada)
History of family tax credits over decades are financially discriminating to singles Part 2 of 2 August 23, 2016 (history-of-family-tax-credits-over-decades table – see article for full description)

The above table shows benefits available to a married or coupled family units with children from time they are able to use maternal and parental benefits to time of death of one spouse (yellow, blue and green fill in). Single parents only have benefits related to their children (orange fill in). Married or coupled family units without children have all the benefits related to having a spouse or partner (navy fill in). Ever singles and early divorced singles have none of the benefits available to married or coupled family units (fill in is blank because they have none of the benefits of spouse #2. In addition, they are often are unable to max out RRSP and TFSA contributions). (While late in life divorced singles have none of the benefits for spouse #2, they may have been able to accumulate more net worth and assets while they had a spouse or partner).

15. Boutique tax credits pushing singles into poverty Part 1 of 2 June 23, 2016 (boutique-tax-credits) and Part 2 of 2 July 3, 2016 (part-2-of-2) – shows how family tax credits given to families with high net worth (brought in by Liberal party this year) are financially discriminatory to singles and are actually pushing them into poverty

16. Six Reasons Why Married/Coupled Persons are Able to Achieve More Financial Power (Wealth) than Singles (six-reasons – see article for further description – for marital manna benefits an example of a gourmet ice cream cone where married/coupled persons get additions of chocolate sauce and sprinkles, but singles only get the ice cream and cone)

“LETS TALK HOUSING” survey link (letstalkhousing)

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

CAUSE AND EFFECT OF FINANCIAL POLICIES PROMOTING FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES AND THE POOR

Posted on September 18, 2016 by ffswpadmin

CAUSE AND EFFECT OF FINANCIAL POLICIES PROMOTING FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES AND THE POOR

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

This blog has attempted to describe some of the many government, politician, business and family financial policy decisions that lead to financial discrimination of singles and the poor.

The question that can be asked is: “Is there a cause and effect relationship to these decisions?”

From Wikipedia and other online sources (study) the definition of ‘cause and effect’ is follows: – Causality (also referred to as causation, or cause and effect) is the agency or efficacy that connects one process (the cause) with another process or state (the effect), where the first is understood to be partly responsible for the second, and the second is dependent on the first. In general, a process has many causes, which are said to be causal factors for it, and all lie in its past. An effect can in turn be a cause of many other effects.

A cause-effect relationship is a relationship in which one event (the cause) makes another event happen (the effect). One cause can have several effects. Cause-Effect Criteria – In order to establish a cause-effect relationship, three criteria must be met. The first criterion is that the cause has to occur before the effect. If the causes occurred before the effects, then the first criterion is met. Second, whenever the cause happens, the effect must also occur. Consequently, if the cause does not happen, then the effect must not take place. The strength of the cause also determines the strength of the effect when criterion two is met. The final criterion is that there are no other factors that can explain the relationship between the cause and effect.

A cause is why something happens. An effect is what happens.

While no scientific ‘cause and effect’ relationship (i.e. fishbone diagrams) has been applied in this blog, certainly many of the financial discriminatory effects of policy decisions (or causes) have been described. Some of these effects are listed below.

Boutique tax credits

Every political party has introduced tax credits to give financial benefits to certain members of the population more than others. June 16/16 (credit)

Business policies

Financial decisions by businesses such as not wanting to have minimum wage increase and not wishing to pay proposed increase of CPP employer contributions continue to help disintegrate the financial well being of singles and the poor. Sept. 12/16 (canada-pension-plan)

CPP

Financial discrimination of the CPP plan. Aug 31/16 (plan)

CPP enhancements

Financial discrimination of CPP enhancements includes higher income earners only paying 8 percent instead of 11 percent CPP contributions on earnings between $72,000 and $82,700. Sept 12/16 (canada-pension-plan)

Family tax credits

Marital manna and family tax credits given over the years have continually increased the financial discrimination of singles and the poor. Many of these benefits have been implemented by the Federal Conservative government over the last decade and perpetuated by the Federal Liberal party since coming into power in 2015 as well as provincial parties. Aug 2/16 (credits)

Housing Affordability

Just 1,048 new affordable housing units in Calgary have been built over the past 14 years; the need for affordable housing was great in 2002 and it remains so today (most of these years were under provincial forty year reign of the Conservative party). July 17/16 (housing)

Homelessness – Two thirds of shelter beds in Canada are filled by people who make relatively infrequent use of shelters and are more likely forced into shelters by economic conditions (due to structural factors, the state of housing and labour markets that destine the very poor to be unable to afford even minimum-quality housing)…attacking housing affordability from the other side, by reducing housing costs, would also be effective….vast majority of homeless shelter users are single. May 23, 2016 (homelessness) and July 17/16 (housing)

Housing Upside Down Pricing and Financing

Upside down pricing of housing where purchasers of smaller units pay more per square foot means they will proportionately pay more house taxes, education taxes, mortgage interest and real estate fees on less house and less take home pay. Nov. 19/15 (upside-down)

Income tax privileging for the middle class and the wealthy

Tax cuts on both federal and provincial levels have targeted the middle class and the wealthy while making poor pay same amount or more in taxes.
Alberta flat tax of 10 percent increased from 8 percent for low income. May 23/16 (homelessness)
Federal tax by federal Liberal party decreased by 1.5% for those earning between $45,282 and $90,563. Aug. 23/16 (family)

Lost Dollar value

Lost dollar value list was created to show lost dollars experienced by singles because married or coupled persons are able to achieve more financial benefits. Some of these include pension splitting, reward programs and Employment Insurance (EI). April 10/16 (value)

Marital manna benefits

1% spousal lending rate, spousal RRSP, TFSAs times two with no cap on total amounts accumulated over years are all within legal limits of financial laws – Six Reasons….(six)

Marrying for money pays off

Study shows persons who marry and stay married accumulate nearly twice as much personal wealth as a person who is single or divorced. Jan. 17/16 (pays)

Maternity and parental benefits

Studies have shown that middle class and wealthy families benefit more from maternity and parental benefits. Many poor families cannot afford take full maternity and parental leave. August 23/17 (family)

Minimum wage/living wage

Decisions and arguments to not increase minimum wage or implement living wage have a dramatic impact on financial well being of singles and the poor. May 4/16 (discriminatory) and Sept. 12/16 (canada-pension-plan)

Net worth and assets

When net worth and assets are not included in family benefit formulas, benefits are often given to those who need these benefits less (middle class and the wealthy) than the poor who have less net worth and assets. August 17/16 (assets)

OAS recovery tax (OAS clawback)

OAS clawback benefits wealthy couples and some widows the most. OAS for couples only begins at net income of $145,618 ($72,809 per person) thus allowing them to receive full OAS of $13,760 as a couple. Not many senior singles (except some widowed persons) who could ever hope to achieve a net income of $72,809. Aug. 29/16 (oas)

Pension splitting

Pension splitting benefits only wealthy married or coupled family units. Singles don’t get to pension split. Jan. 31/16 (government) and May 4/16 (selective).

Reward programs, company perks, money benefit programs, and fee schedules benefit families the most

Feb. 11/16 (company) and Mar. 7/16 (money) and Mar. 10/ 16 (reward) and April 27/16 (fee) and July 21/16 (2016/07/21)

‘Selective’ social democracy

There has been much that is good about democratic socialism, but there also has been some negative outcomes . One outcome is ‘selective’ democratic socialism where certain members of society receive more social benefits than others. May 4/16 (selective)

Senior singles pay more

Senior singles often ‘pay more, get less’ because they are not included equally in financial formulas. Singles also help support widowed persons and survivor pension plans. Dec. 22/15 (senior) and June 2/16 (retirement)

Singles not included or improperly identified in family definition

Ever singles (never married, no kids) are often not properly identified in family definitions. Widowed persons and single parents are not ever singles. Widowed persons and single parents are afforded some benefits that ever singles do not receive. Dec. 2/15 (false) and Aug. 7/16 (definition)

CONCLUSION

It is very clear from the many examples above that government, politician, business and family financial policy decisions are often made in isolation and in financial silo fashion. Continuation of these practises without a clear path to proper evaluation of all ‘across the board’ financial formulas and their ‘cause and effect’ on each other will only lead to perverse financial privileging of the middle class and wealthy while continuing financial discrimination of ever singles, early in life divorced singles, single parents and the poor.

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

NET WORTH AND ASSETS CONTRIBUTE TO FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES-Part 2 of 2

Posted on August 17, 2016 by ffswpadmin

NET WORTH AND ASSETS CONTRIBUTE TO FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES–Part 2 of 2

(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).

When politicians, government and the wealthy continue to perpetuate myths that net worth and assets are too difficult to calculate or should not or cannot be included in financial formulas, this continues to make it possible for the wealthy to maintain their wealth and impossible for singles and the poor to maintain or increase their financial well-being thus resulting in financial discrimination and poverty for these groups.

The following three examples show how inclusion or exclusion of net worth and assets perpetuates the myths proposed by financial analysts, politicians, government and the wealthy.

EXAMPLE #1

Affordable Housing (services)

One assistance program in Alberta is Community Housing which is a subsidized rental program. It provides housing to families and individuals who have a low or modest income. Program funding comes from the federal, provincial, and municipal governments.To qualify, applicants must be Canadian Citizens, independent landed immigrants, or government sponsored landed immigrants. Assets and belongings cannot exceed $7,000. Assets include, but are not limited to:

bank accounts
investments (excluding RRSPs)
equity in property
equity in a motor vehicle (assessed by reviewing the value in the most current Canadian Red Book)

EXAMPLE #2

Legal Aid Alberta (legalaid)

Financial Eligibility Guidelines – If income falls within the amounts listed below, person(s) may be eligible for legal representation and to have a lawyer appointed. Representational services are not free. Repayment will be discussed if a lawyer is appointed. Legal Aid’s Financial Eligibility Guidelines allow the following eligible monthly income for family size of 1 – $1,638, 2 – $2,027, 3 – $2,885, 4 – $3,120, 5 – $3,354 and 6+ – $3,587.

An example of this is an actual court case going on at the present time. Legal Aid has refused to assist client’s claim of defence for an estimated $25,000 in legal fees. Legal Aid says client still has a large amount of property ($500,000 mortgage free), $34,000 in savings, tax free savings account (TFSA), and GICs and mutual funds worth another $21,000, plus $570 a month in old-age security payments with monthly expenses of $1,660. Legal Aid does not give coverage to individuals with assets in excess of $120,000. Legal Aid states: “client would be left with well over a half a million dollars in assets even after payment of legal fees.”

EXAMPLE #3

Family Tax Credits (tax-credits)

June 11, 2016 Financial Post Personal Finance Plan “Farm Plan Risky for Couple with 4 kids” shows how plethora of tax credits works for this family, Ed 32 and Teresa 33, stay at home spouse have four children ages 5, 3, 1 and newborn. Government employee Ed brings home $2,680 after monthly tax income. Net worth is already $502,000 including $200,000 paid for house. Non taxable Liberal Canada Child Benefit for four children will be $1,811 per month bringing income to $4,491 per month. (From ages 6 to 17, Canada Child Benefit will be $1,478 per month).

LESSONS LEARNED

These three examples show how the inclusion or exclusion of net worth and assets benefit the wealthy and families more than singles and poor families. In Example #1, to receive housing assistance only $7,000 is allowed in assets. Really, that is it? Compare that to Example 3 where a family already having significant net worth will receive benefit upon benefit upon benefit in addition to Family Tax Credits. In Example #2, this could be said to be a good case where financial fairness has prevailed. This client has plenty of net worth and assets to pay for $25,000 legal defence. When the Legal Aid income scales are analyzed, it is apparent they have at least used some form of equivalence scales (finances). Hallelujah, here is one example where a family unit of two is not assessed at a value times two of that of family unit of one!

CONCLUSION

This post is just another example of the blatant hypocrisy and upside-down finances that financial analysts, politicians and government, and families perpetuate by not including net worth and assets in all financial formulas across the board whether they are local, provincial or federal or of a service type such as Legal Aid. The blatant financial discrimination of singles and the poor continues while the wealthy get to write their own ticket to wealth by paying less and increasing wealth.

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

NET WORTH AND ASSETS CONTRIBUTE TO FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES-Part 1 of 2

Posted on August 14, 2016 by ffswpadmin

NET WORTH AND ASSETS CONTRIBUTE TO FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES-Part 1 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).

Past posts on this blog have shown how financial formulas that do not include net worth and assets in the formulation promote financial discrimination of singles and the poor.

In past posts financial profiles from the Financial Post have been used to show reasons why and how singles are financially discriminated against. The editor of the Financial Post profiles Andrew Allentuck, published an interesting article on November 9, 2011 “The rich not an easy target for the taxman” (financialpost).

The idea of taxing the rich is back in fashion. Advocates for hitting wealthy people with extra taxes argue that it would add to national or provincial revenues and counter the maldistribution of wealth in Canada….

Taxing wealth by taxing income is bad economics. Wealth is a stock while income is a flow, notes Fred O’Riordan, national advisor for tax services with Ernst & Young in Ottawa. People can be wealthy, but if they are not employed or if they are retired, they may have modest incomes, In turn, there are people with high incomes who are spendthrifts and do not build up much wealth. Advocates for taxing the rich have to aim for the right target….

Today, wealth taxes (in Canada) continue to exist at low rates charged as probate fees when estates are wound up. (These low fees have helped stop flow of monies out of the country as experienced by countries with high probate fees)…..

The problem, Mr. O’Riordan notes, is that wealth is more portable than income and is easily moved by the living. Money can be electronically zipped around the world in seconds. Moreover, if the wealthy can see special levies coming, they can shift their wealth away from tax assessor’s hands.

Even if a country or a state or a province were to decide to tax wealth, hurdles would be substantial. Mansions and lavish condos are immovable and therefore easy to tax. Financial assets like stocks and bonds, mutual funds and bank accounts are registered in various places and therefore also are relatively easy to tax.

Wealth taxation gets harder when the target is art hanging on walls, collections of comic books and baseball cards, all of which are subject to tests of authenticity and changing fashions. When it comes to buried treasure, such as jewels or gold in safe deposit boxes, merely finding assets would be challenging…..

The difficulty of assessing the value of art, furs, jewels and other trappings of wealth would push tax authorities to focus on easy targets. Houses and condos are a large component of most people’s wealth. Yet taxes on homes would be regressive, Mr. O’Riordan says. “Middle-class people would have a higher proportion of their net worth in houses than do the very rich. Moreover, home equity rises with age as mortgage are paid off. So a tax on easily measured home prices or values would hit the middle classes and the middle-aged and the elderly harder than they would young families or young people or who have little equity in their houses or condos”, he argues.

Intellectual property like copyrights and patents are even harder to value. The value of the most powerful form of wealth, human capital, would be a tax appraiser’s nightmare….

Finally, there are questions of how much tax is too much tax. Income is already taxed via annual returns, then retaxed when spent via sales taxes and the GST or HST, real estate taxes and sin taxes….To tax it again when unspent as wealthy might be widely resisted. Moreover, a tax on savings or, as some might see it, on thrift itself, could drive down national savings. Businesses needing loans would be driven to borrow abroad. Rising foreign debt would weaken the dollar. As Leonard Loboda, a business advisor in Winnipeg explains, “soaking the rich historically defeats investment.”

COMMENTS ON ARTICLE

These comments are in reference to multiple benefits doled out by politicians, government and businesses without regard to net worth and assets. To do nothing in assessing net worth and assets when handing out benefits is a blatant disregard of and promotes financial discrimination of singles and poor families. An example of this is past post on family tax credits (program).

“People can be wealthy, but if they are not employed or if they are retired, they may have modest incomes, In turn, there are people with high incomes who are spendthrifts and do not build up much wealth”. Really??? Just because wealthy people may not be employed or have modest incomes or are retired does not mean they should receive more benefits than those who are gainfully employed with low incomes and less wealth (example: family tax credits given in full amount to wealthy families who have low income and many children). For those with high income who are spendthrifts, isn’t that their problem for being financially irresponsible? It is also irresponsible for politicians and government to give benefits to this group. (Family tax credits are only partially doing the right thing by using graduated income levels to reduce benefits for those with higher incomes).

Irresponsible financial behaviours on the part of those holding the wealth–it is irresponsible for those with wealth (applies to all persons regardless of marital status) to seek financial assistance when they have the means to use up some of their net worth and assets. If persons can’t afford to pay house taxes or afford to live, but have huge expensive houses, they should sell their homes and move to less expensive dwellings.

Upside down financing–net worth and assets of the wealthy where they often pay less in taxes, but get more in benefits is perpetuated by upside down financing initiated by the wealthy, politicians and government (housing is just one example) (finances).

Financial analysts and think tanks perpetuate financial advice that benefits mostly wealthy and those with more net worth and assets. True facts about what it costs singles to live is often under-reported. All the extra benefits given to married or coupled family units are not looked at in one big picture, but rather in isolated statements. Some financial analysts and think tanks do not treat home equity as a retirement asset. (They believe that replacement rate analysis has as its objective an income that allows one to enjoy a lifestyle comparable to that which existed pre-retirement. They do not include home equity because they accept that the pre-retirement lifestyle for many middle-and moderate-income Canadians include continued homeownership). (financial). In other words, those who have never been able to afford homeownership deserve to live a lesser lifestyle throughout their lives and into retirement.

When politicians, government and the wealthy continue to perpetuate myths that net worth and assets are too difficult to calculate or should not be included in financial formulas, this continues to make it possible for the wealthy to maintain their wealth and impossible for singles and the poor to maintain or increase their financial well-being thus resulting in financial discrimination for these groups.

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

REAL FINANCIAL LIVES OF SINGLES

Posted on April 24, 2016 by ffswpadmin

REAL FINANCIAL LIVES 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.

It seems governments, decision making bodies, families and married/coupled people have difficulty understanding that many singles are in as much financial distress as they are. They perceive singles to have spendthrift lifestyles and to be poor managers of their finances. To show how untrue this is, five cases are presented here. Four of the cases are employed singles or divorced persons; fifth case is a wealthy widower already retired.

CASE STUDIES

Case 1-Tanis age 54, November 2, 2013, Financial Post Personal Finance Evaluation, “Frugal Lifestyles Reaps Rewards” (business.financialpost)-Single 54 year-old (divorced in 2002, left with debt of $40,000 which she paid off in five years) has take-home income of $48,000 annually ($80,000 pretax?). Two children are financially independent. She would like to retire between age 65 and 67. To save, she buys clothes at thrift shops, has hair done by students and volunteers at events so she can see them without charge. Assets $215,000 home, $75,000 vacation cottage $8,500 car, $149,925 RRSPs, line of credit $8,500, mortgages $201,374 with net worth of $239, 551. She is anxious to sell vacation property as occasional rentals are not covering mortgage costs. Article states she has turned frugality (financial distress) into a financial strategy. Total monthly expenses are $3,996. She has no money left for emergencies, replacement of vehicle, or other unexpected expenses like dental, vision care or medications. Elimination of vacation condo mortgage, fees, insurance and line of credit would free up $1500 monthly for these financial realities. If she takes advice of financial planner (2013), she should have retirement income at age 66 comprised of $12,240 employee pension, CPP $10,840, OAS 7,008, investment income of $12,516 and $12,465 from other savings for total before tax income of $55,069 or $3,900 a month after 15% average income tax.

Case 2-Public Service Canadian employees in same job/wage categories with 2013 annual income around $67,000 for never married singles, no children (calculations may vary between provinces regarding tax and other deductions). Approximate payroll , deductions include income tax $11,000, CPP and EI $3,200, union dues $900, public pension contributions $5,300, RRSP deductions $3,500, parking $1,200, health premiums and insurance $600, for total of $25,700. This leaves $41,300 yearly take home income.

Case 3- Doris age 63, October 12, 2013 Financial Post Personal Finance Evaluation, “The choices: Be a good grandma and poor or work and retire happy” (pressreader)-This generous 63 year old grandmother (divorced or single with a grown child?) has total before tax income $47,600 ($41,600 annual earnings and receives $6,000 from roommate with whom she shares apartment). Car worth $3,000 and $10,000 line of credit for negative net worth of minus $7,000. She is barely making ends meet now. Monthly expenses are $3,100 per month. Question asked: can she quit work at age of 63 and babysit granddaughter for $500 a month? Answer is a definitive ‘no’. She is better off to work to age 65 to get full job and Canada pensions and then could give $500.00 to daughter (who earns similar salary as her mother) to help with daycare costs. Best financial situation is to work until age 70 to maximize her own pension and have extra money as contingency. At age 70 she will have after tax income of $3,800 a month. As a renter this single has to work well beyond age 65 to avoid poverty as a single senior. (She is very generous. If there is problem with expenses, should she be contributing $116 to her granddaughter’s RESP? Also food budget is high at $375, but some of this might be for granddaughter and is renter paying for own food?)

Case 4–Georges age 51, August 15, 2015, Financial Post Financial Evaluation, “Should he buy first house at 51? (business.financialpost)-Georges is a production line supervisor who rents and has total net worth of $152,000. Current after tax income is $50,244 or $4,187 per month. Financial planner states that Georges’ problem is very simple; he cannot afford both to buy a home and build retirement savings. Repeat: this man, who has appearance of a responsible productive citizen working at supervisory level, is making $81,600 a year, but has been told that he cannot afford both. Financial planner says alternatives are to buy smaller (translation cheapest) home or get better paying job. At age 65 and still renting, his projected before tax retirement income is $55,258 (with OAS at 67), and 22% tax, after tax income will be $3,590 a month with $949 surplus to do with whatever he wants. How generous and fifteen years later his apartment will be how old with no refurbishments and likely increases in rent!!! (Georges does have very high food and restaurant expenses. Further economies could be achieved by reducing these expenses. His travel costs also appear very high; however, there is no mention that he owns a vehicle so some of the travel costs may be for transit and taxi costs. Living wage for Guelph and Wellington suggests $221 for transit and taxi for a single person.)

Case 5-Philip age 78, October 26, 2013 Financial Post Personal Finance Evaluation, “Strategy: Cut the taxman’s bite” (pressreader) -Widower 78 years old wants to keep as much as of his $1million net worth for his two sons, but can no longer pension income split. His pre-tax income of $79,450 and taxable dividends puts him in danger of 2013 OAS clawback. The article states ‘that is unfair to every person who has taxable dividends and receives OAS. In this case his sons will receive less inheritance. It is the fact of life for every widow and widower.’ Wow, that really is a financial hardship for him (and his sons who will receive large inheritances)!!! How the taxes were calculated for this person is not clear. At one point, it is stated that taxes plus OAS clawback gives a total of 48% income tax payable. Yet, his $66,000 income per month out of total $80,000 before tax income equals a deduction of only 18%. After expenses, it is amazing that he is able to put $3,000 into his TFSA and savings accounts.

ANALYSIS

Frugal financial lifestyle – Many singles are frugal because they have to be (Tanis). Word ‘frugal’ used by financial planners respectfully describes financial distress of singles. Why not call it was it is, a poor financial quality of life?

Good incomes, but have difficulties living on them regardless if renting or paying a mortgage– Some singles in these cases are making around $80,000 before tax income which is far above average before tax incomes of many singles and families in Canada. The MoneySense 2015 All Canadian Wealth Test (wealth-test-2015-charts) (based on 2011 Statistics Canada data) shows that the top 20% quintile of unattached individuals have incomes over $55,499. Unattached individuals in the middle 20% quintile have incomes from $23,357 to $36,859 and are considered to be middle class. But are they able to live a middle class or wealthy lifestyle with these incomes? If singles are having a hard time living on $50,000 plus incomes and are unable to max out their TFSA and RRSP accounts, there is something very wrong with financial systems for singles in this country (including lower income singles). Married/coupled people are quite often able to buy additional properties like rental and vacation properties, but then have to sell them (Case 1 – Tanis) when they become single because they can’t afford them.

Good incomes, but it doesn’t matter how much more singles make they still gain very little from increased income. With every $20,000 increase in income they are lucky to get maybe extra $500 a month or $6,000 a year. This is 30% gain in disposable income to 70% loss in deductions. If Georges gets a higher paying job, he will likely be in a higher tax bracket. (added April 27, 2016)

Financial planners say it is not possible for singles to have a mortgage and save at the same time, can only do one or other. They also tell single to get better paying jobs (but Case 4 – Georges already has a very good paying job at $81,000). – When singles are already working at very good salaried and management jobs earning $60,000 to $80,000, these are not $15 per hour jobs but $30 to $40 per hour jobs. It is also bizarre when financial planners state these high paid singles are not able both to save for a house and save for retirement and should get better paying jobs ( Case 4 – Georges). What does this mean, singles are only able to rent and cannot have mortgages except with $100,000 plus income jobs? Another example is MoneySense April, 2016 “Budget Basics” (moneysense) – Lindsay is 29 year old engineering consultant from British Columbia who earns $71,000. She owns an affordable $150,000 condo (housing costs are just 30% of her income which is nearly unheard of in British Columbia) and has $46,000 in RRSP and TFSA savings (saves 20% of her salary at $400 to her TFSA and $220 to her RRSP- RRSP is matched by her employer). She wants to save for a bigger condo so she can have a dog and a garden. The problem, though, is her expenses are surpassing her income. She has $11,000 line of credit and $15,000 car loan. The suggested financial action plan is to rethink her budget and to track her true expenses, subtract them from her net income and then reallocate what is left to savings. She is in good financial shape, but she is trying to accomplish too many things at once (so stated in article). In other words, it is very difficult for singles to have a mortgage and save at the same time even with good salaries.

What expenses are missing from budgets for most singles (can’t afford)?
Dental, medical, medication
House maintenance
Extra monies for savings/emergencies
Restaurants/vacation/entertainment
Computer and repair, paper, ink
Replacement of vehicle
Other fees and expenses like library/recreation/fitness/magazines, books, etc.
Car license, registration, motor association fees
Professional association fees which can be very expensive depending on profession

Public Service single employees during employment or retirement are not as rich as everyone thinks – Singles with public service jobs (you know those people who make so much more than private sector employees and have outrageous pensions) often don’t have any more take home pay than private sector employees. The public pension benefits must come from contributions during their working years leaving them financially stretched during their working years (this is not a bad thing as this is income being directed to savings). Pensions on retirement are taxed at same rate as married persons and pension splitting is not available for singles. Survivors pensions paid to widowers are subsidized by contributions of single employees. Many singles with or without company pensions don’t have any more income in retirement than they had during employment. If they are paying rent or mortgage they often are as poor during retirement and have no extra money for emergencies, replacement of vehicles and medical expenses. (They may have a better quality of life during retirement if they own their own home and are not paying rent. In these cases the only deductions public service individuals have any control over is the personal RRSP contribution). Based on 15 year service as public service employee and rough calculation of retirement, take home income at age 65 is may be about $3,400 a month with rent or mortgage possibly not paid in full; therefore, these persons will have to draw from savings to pay expenses or work past the age of 65.

Unused RRSP and TFSA contributions – Most singles, unless they are wealthy, will have multiple unused room in RRSP and TFSA savings plans because of inability to max out contributions.

Married/coupled persons (many, not all) have unrealistic sense of entitlement and want it to continue throughout their lives from time of marriage to date of death – Case 5 – (business.financialpost) Philip wants to keep as much of his $1million net worth for sons’ inheritances, but doesn’t want OAS clawback on his income and taxable dividends. Some married/coupled people with huge financial assets don’t want to give anything up (David 71 and Celeste 63, August 8, 2015, Financial Post Personal Finance Evaluation, “Couple fears shift to pension income”) (business.financialpost). If they have problems during retirement, how about selling their $355,000 USA condo and winter at home in Canada? Herb and Isabel at age 37 have so much wealth, $1.8 million, they can take two year out of country vacation and retire early and wealthy even though they have two children (Herb and Isabel, August 22, 2015, Financial Post Personal Finance Evaluation, “Vacation, Retirement hinge on real estate” business.financialpost).

Marital status or state of being married does not mean married people are any better at managing their financial affairs than singles (David and Celeste-need financial planning as disinterested investors with $ 1.9 million net worth, and Patricia 53, August 29, 2015, Calgary Herald, Financial Post Personal Finance Evaluation, “Debt clouds dreams of retirement at 60” who has monthly after tax income of $15,000) (pressreader).

Many married/coupled persons can retire before age 65, while most singles know they can’t retire until age 65 or beyond (Case 3 – Doris)

Shouldn’t financial systems be well planned to ensure all citizens (singles and young people) can live decent respectful financial lives without help from their parents and/or inheritances and without marital manna benefits?

CONCLUSION

Singles deserve same financial dignity and respect as married/coupled persons. Singles need to be included in financial decision making and formulas at same level as married/coupled persons and families.

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

SENIOR SINGLES PAY MORE – PART 2 OF 4

Posted on December 9, 2015 by ffswpadmin

FINANCIAL FAIRNESS FOR SENIOR SINGLES NOT PART OF PLAN

(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).

This article was published in a local newspaper on August 19, 2015. The Conservative Party was in power federally at the time. In the October, 2015 federal elections the Conservatives were ousted by the Liberal Party. Proper names have been removed.)

In the midst of a Federal Election the financial rhetoric continues. The Conservative Member of Parliament, Wildrose, in his latest mailbox flyer, states that Conservatives have been committed to helping provide Canadian seniors with a secure and dignified retirement. The reality is that married/partnered people stand to gain much more from the Conservative Action Plan 2015 and other Conservative financial initiatives than individual/single seniors.

First, increases in the contribution limits of the TFSA account favors married/partnered people as the contribution limit per person is doubled. (The doubling of the TFSA was rescinded by the Liberals when they came into power in the October, 2015 federal election).

Second, pension splitting benefits applies only to married/couple people, not singles.

Third, the Age Credit benefits initiative increased by an amount of approximately $1,000. This benefit is incrementally reduced by 15% of net income exceeding approximately $35,000 and is eliminated when net income exceeds approximately $80,000. Any unused portion of the Age Credit can be transferred to the individual’s spouse or common-law partner. Comparable benefit of unused portion to individuals/singles without a spouse/common-law partner is zero.

Fourth, in the targeted tax relief benefits a senior couple can earn $40,720 without paying income tax (marital manna benefit), while a single senior can only earn $20,360 before paying income tax.

Fifth, Allowance for people ages 60 to 64 benefits are available to the spouses or common-law partners of GIS recipients. The spouse, age 60 to 64, of a senior with a single income of less than $31,584 may receive an allowance of $1,070.60 per month. This is an additional $12,000 per year. Furthermore, this benefit may also be available to immigrant married/coupled people who have been in the country for only ten years. Canadian-born and immigrant individuals/singles have nothing comparable to this benefit.

These are just a few of many more examples.

The following tables showing the income and net worth/wealth of unattached individuals versus families of two or more have been taken from MoneySense, The All-Canadian Wealth Test, January 2015 (moneysense) (based on Statistics Canada 2011 data)

____________________________________________________________________

INCOME TABLE

______________________________________________________________________________

INCOME

HOW DOES YOUR PAY STACK UP

_____________________________________________________________________

Quintiles Unattached Individuals Families of Two or More

Bottom 20% $0 to $18,717 $0 to $38,754

Lower-Middle 20% $18,718 to $23,356 $38,755 to $61,928

Middle 20% $23,357 to $36,859 $61,929 to $88,074

Upper-Middle 20% $36,860 to $55,498 $88,075 to $125,009

Highest 20% $55,499 and up $125,010 and up

______________________________________________________________________________

NET WORTH TABLE

____________________________________________________________________

NET WORTH

ARE YOU RICH?

______________________________________________________________________________

Quintiles Unattached Individuals Families of Two or More

Bottom 20% Negative to $2,468 Negative to $67,970

Lower-Middle 20% $2,469 to $19,264 $67,971 to $263,656

Middle 20% $19,265 to $128,087 $263,657 to $589,686

Upper-Middle 20% $128,088 to $455,876 $589,687 to $1,139,488

Highest 20% $455,877 and over $1,139,489 and up

______________________________________________________________________________

An individual/single person who has an income of more than $55,000 is considered to be in the top 20% ‘wealthy’ category, but has great difficulty living a ‘wealthy’ lifestyle on $55,000 especially if they have a mortgage or need to pay rent in their senior years (meanwhile wealthy family income is $125,000 and up). Women between ages 45 and 64 earn on average $23,000 less than men.

What is even more revealing is the net worth of unattached individuals compared to families of two or more. The MoneySense article makes the following comments:

“The collective net worth of the lowest 40% of individuals wouldn’t match the poorest 20% of families. Families can build wealth faster than individuals because they can pool resources, which enables them to pay down debts faster and make larger purchases. And what a difference it makes: between ages 55 and 65, families are worth, on average, a whopping $670,000 more than unattached individuals in the same age group”.

(It should be noted that the net worth is probably even higher for families of two or more, since it appears that single parents with children are included in families of two or more statistics. Single and divorced/separated parents of children, especially if younger in age, should excluded from families of two or more and placed into their own category for more accurate statistics -added January 20, 2016).

It is always prudent to have more than one source for verification of facts, so here are another two.

The “Current State of Canadian Family Finances 2013-2014” report by the Vanier Institute of the Family vanierinstitute.ca states that

“between 1999 and 2012 the net worth of families advanced more than it did for unattached individuals”.

The 2009 “Report of the National Seniors Council on Low Income Among Seniors” (seniorscouncil) states that:

“between 1980 and 2006, the unattached have the highest incidence of low income of any group, with 15.5 percent of unattached seniors living below LICO in 2006, a rate 11 times higher than that of senior couples (1.4 per cent)”.

So how can married/coupled people continue to demand more financial benefits? How can governments continue to increase the financial means of married/coupled people at the expense of unattached individuals/singles? And, how expensive is it really to raise children when families can achieve so much more net worth than singles? Financial fairness requires balance and elimination of unfair benefits such as income/pension splitting and ability to transfer credits from one spouse to another.

The Conservative MP claims to “stand up for Canada’s seniors who have helped make Canada the strong and prosperous country it is today”. However, this holds true more for married/coupled people in Canada than it does for individuals/singles. In his flyer, the Conservative MP wants feedback on the question “Am I on the right track to deliver support to seniors?” For senior individuals/singles the answer is a resounding and unequivocal “NO”.

Individuals/singles need to stand up, speak out and make facts such as the above known to their members of Parliament, those with decision-making power, and families. Individuals/singles need to decide which political parties are detrimental to their financial health and vote for the party which best meets their financial needs in the Federal election. They need to demand financial sensibility and equality. Financial discrimination of one segment of the population over another is a blatant violation of human rights and civil rights.

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