Category Archives: singles need 70-75% income

SINGLES NEED TO LEARN HOW TO ARTICULATE FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES

Posted on by
3

SINGLES NEED TO LEARN HOW TO ARTICULATE FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES

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

In last post of July 25, 2016 (program) it was shown how the new Canada Child Benefit program is a source of discontent for families and how financial discrimination of singles continues.

This post also showed how singles feel they have been left out of the financial process and how most families will bash singles whenever they express despair about this fact. (Ever singles and early divorced singles without children are made to help pay for Canada Child Benefit while families with high net worth are still able to profit from the Child Benefit and other benefits).

As has been stated many times by this blog author, families will talk about about how their ‘hearts are eternally and inexplicably changed’ when bearing their children, but same hearts appear to become ‘hearts of stone’ in financial matters when these same children become adult singles, low income or no income persons and families.  These disadvantaged persons are tossed out or are made to be less important in financial formulas and decision-making processes.  It is like families become financially dissociated or detached from their children, siblings and relatives that are single without children. Singles are made invisible and excluded from financial formulas by families, politicians and governments.

In last post comments from singles on the Canada Child Benefit were itemized.  The one common theme running through all these comments is the dissatisfaction with financial discrimination, but no articulation of what needs to change.  When singles are commenting online or by other means, comments without substantiation will just produce more financial bashing of singles.

SINGLES NEED TO LEARN HOW TO ARTICULATE HOW THEY ARE BEING FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATED AGAINST BY:

–Educate, educate, educate while stating facts– It is a sad fact that most families, businesses, financial gurus, politicians and government  will not have a clue about what singles are talking about when it comes to financial discrimination.  Most will get that glazed look in their eyes and state it costs less for singles to live and children are more important. And unfortunately, the education of others will have to occur over and over again until there is maybe one fact that will stick to achieve an ‘ah, ha’ moment.  Also, singles will need to be prepared for anger, defensiveness and a whole range of other negative emotions from people they are trying to educate.

–Show examples – This cannot be stressed enough.  It is often the examples that will produce understanding of the financial discrimination of singles.  For example:

— show copy of ‘Six Reasons Why Married or Coupled Persons Able to Achieve More Financial Power (Wealth) than Single Persons’ (six-reasons)

—show an outline of your budget

—give copies of articles that show how much it costs singles to live

— show examples of how financially privileged families are becoming with benefits like the Child Benefit program (tax-credits)

— show examples of how financially privileged families have become with the benefits upon benefits they receive.  (An example of benefits upon benefits is this statement:  From time couple with children is married to time one spouse dies couple will have possibly received shower, wedding, baby gifts, paid maternity/paternity leave, child benefits, TFSA/RRSP benefits times two, RESP grants, reduced taxes, pension-splitting and possible survivor death benefits. Singles get none of these benefits while supporting families through payment of taxes to support these benefits-show this statement when talking about financial privilege of families).

— show visual examples of graphs, pictures, etc. that give information on all the benefits that one family unit will receive over the family unit comprised of single persons, for example, financial silos (financial-illiteracy)

— show statistics from studies like ‘Living wage for Guelph and Wellington 2013 (Report) that itemize what it costs a single person to stay off the streets.

—become knowledgeable about different levels of status of singles (marital status).  For example, rebuttals will often state singles are included in financial formulas, when in fact, the only singles more likely to be included are single parents and widowed persons. (Updated August 7, 2016)

– Provide solutions – Provide solutions to financial decision makers, one example is to use cost of living equivalence standards (singles) for financial formulas.  It is a false statement to say that cost of living for a single person is one half of a married or coupled family unit of two. Rather, some statistics show cost of living for family unit of a single person is approximately 70% of a married or coupled family unit of two.  Singles deserve equal representation in financial formulas according to what it costs them to live.

– Spread the word – Tell other singles about financial discrimination, and above all, lobby all decision makers (families, businesses, politicians and government) about inclusion of singles in financial formulas.

– Get out and vote!  All financial lives matter.  Stop the financial discrimination of singles!

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

POLITICIAN’S RESPONSE LETTER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SINGLES’ FINANCES

Posted on by
6

POLITICIAN’S RESPONSE LETTER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SINGLES’ FINANCES

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

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

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

A portion of the letter is reproduced as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table for two equivalence scales:

equivalence scales

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

 

living wage in dollars

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

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

Posted on by
1

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The article is then signed by fifteen different organizations.

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

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

income advantage senior widow over ever single2

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

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

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

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

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

    • change financial formulas so that senior couples receive 1.4 equivalence scale only of whatever is given to a single senior person household as it costs more for single senior person household to live than it does married/coupled family units because of economies of scale
    • financial formulas should be revised to include all senior persons regardless of marital status in one financial formula.  To eliminate financial silos that benefit married/coupled persons most, delete benefits already given to married/coupled persons such as pension splitting (benefits the rich most) so that there is a level financial playing field for all regardless of marital status. (It is understood that it is expensive to raise children and  benefits given for children should last for first twenty years of the life of the child. However, beyond the twenty years of the children, any other benefits given to married/coupled persons should be deleted or revised to a rate of 1.4 to that of a single person)
    • create a side-by-side list of all possible benefits under categories of married/coupled, widowed and single and analyze what each category gets in benefits.  Financial formulas should be created equally for all categories, not just the married/coupled and widowed.
    • delete allowance benefit that has been ruled to be discriminatory by the courts
    • education, education and more education on financial literacy for singles.  Think tanks, financial gurus and married/coupled people need to educate themselves on what it really costs singles to live.
    • financial benefits should be income-tested for all family unit types.  Income testing should include housing and savings.  It is likely to cost ever singles more to live as they are more likely to rent while widowers are more likely to own their own homes.
    • all financial formulas for singles should include ever singles, early divorced/separated persons and widowers on an equal basis.

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

(The author of this blog applauds Ron Kneebone and Margarita Wilkins for their study on homelessness for single employables in this country.  Words in italics are the words of the author of this blog.  Caveat: While we don’t agree with everything that comes out of Schools of Public Policy, we agree with the premise of this study, that is, single employables (singles and single parents) are having a very difficult time surviving on low wages and lack of affordable housing.)

The following excerpts are taken from “Shrinking the need for homeless shelter spaces” (policthat is, yschool.ucalgary.ca) by Ron Kneebone and Margarita Wilkins from the University of Calgary School of Public Policy and the opinion letter “The secrets of reducing homelessness” (calgaryherald) by Ron  Kneebone also refers to this study.

‘In 2009, an estimated 147,000 people, or about one in 230 Canadians, stayed in an emergency homeless shelter.

….The chronically homeless, whether for long periods or with repeated episodes, are a minority (one-third due to personal challenges (sic such as alcoholism and drug addiction) not immediately associated with the economic conditions of the city in which they live) of those experiencing homelessness.  An implication is that the majority of emergency shelter beds are provided to meet the needs of people who experience homelessness for short and infrequent periods and do so as a result of poverty.  The remaining two-thirds of shelter beds are filled by people who make relatively infrequent use of shelters and are more likely forced into shelters by economic conditions….

A role is also possibly played by discrimination in the housing market; discrimination that leaves some people with no option but to use a shelter and for social agencies to provide for them.

But our main focus was on housing affordability. We found that cities where the income support provided by the provincial social assistance system to a single person was small relative to rent — that is, in cities where housing was expensive for a very poor person — social agencies found it necessary to provide more emergency shelter beds.

The policy implications of this result are clear; increase the affordability of housing to very poor people and the need for emergency shelter spaces will fall. There are a number of ways of accomplishing this goal and it would likely be wise to act on all of these policy fronts…

We show that providing a relatively small income increase — just $1,500 per year — to single people on social assistance would enable the closing of about 20 per cent of emergency shelter beds.

Attacking housing affordability from the other side, by reducing housing costs, would also be effective. There are many options available here, from increased rent supplements to tax and regulatory changes that enable housing to be built that is affordable to those with low incomes….

  Policy-makers need not focus too narrowly on just a few policy responses, and need not rely solely on publicly funded construction of low-income housing.  Many, more subtle, adjustments to policy levers can have equally important influences on the housing market and hence homelessness….

…We continue to be perplexed why governments fail to index for inflation the income support provided to those in poverty….

…two broad sets of policy responses are possible, those aimed at treating causes of homelessness closely tied to individual circumstances and those aimed at treating causes of homelessness related to housing market conditions….

…The theoretical connection between homelessness and housing market conditions is straightforward:  even if one can pay for the minimum quality of housing available in a city, if there is little income left over for other of life’s necessities (food, clothing, etc.) one might rationally choose to forgo conventional housing and try one’s luck doubling up with relatives or friends, or temporarily using a city’s shelter system.  Thus, to the extent that minimum-quality housing is priced such that it would consume an extremely high proportion of one’s income, a person may become homeless….

….Rapid population growth and strong labour markets (sic such as occurred in cities like Vancouver, Toronto, and Calgary) influence prices by increasing the demand for housing. For those unable to benefit from strong economic growth, housing costs can quickly rise out of reach. Changes in income distribution may also play a role as the types of housing available in a city with income skewed toward the high end will differ from housing options available in a city with income skewed in the other direction.

Public policy choices can also be expected to influence the affordability of housing.  Interest rates and tax policies influence the housing market by affecting new construction costs, the costs of rehabilitating old buildings, and the costs of maintenance and building abandonment….

…Report by TD Economics. (Affordable Housing in Canada):  Using data from 2002, the report provides information that allows one to identify what percentage of the total cost of building a modest rental apartment is due to local infrastructure charges, application fees and building permits. These local charges ranged from a low of 1.7 per cent of total cost in Montreal to a high of 11 per cent in Ottawa. In a study using U.S. data, Stephen Malpezzi and Richard Green show that moving from a relatively unregulated to a heavily regulated metropolitan area increases rents among the lowest-income renters by one-fifth and increases home values for the lowest quality single family homes by more than three-fifths. The largest price effects of such regulations occur at the bottom of the distribution in units that are disproportionately occupied by low- and moderate-income households….

…The influence seems to be large; providing an additional 100 rent-assisted units has been shown to reduce by four the number of people experiencing homelessness (from How to House the Homeless)….’

When conducting the study, Kneebone and Wilkins used the following variables:

‘….Our dependent variable is the number of emergency shelter beds (Beds) provided in each city as a fraction of that city’s total adult population (Pop). Our key policy-sensitive determinant of that dependent variable is a measure of housing affordability, the ratio of a relevant income measure to a relevant measure of housing cost….

…Our measure of income is the amount of social assistance income provided to a person defined in provincial social assistance programs as a single employable (Income). A person classified in this way is single and without an impediment to employment that is recognized by the provincial social assistance program. Our measure of housing cost is based on the average amount paid on a one-bedroom rental unit (Rent).

We use as our measure of income the aforementioned amount of social assistance paid to a single employable for three reasons.   First, the vast majority of homeless shelter users are single. Second, people most likely to experience homelessness are mainly, as emphasized by Burt et al.,  the “poorest of the poor.” At an average annual income of about $7,500 (our data are for 2011 and vary by province), social assistance is the income of last resort for a single person deemed healthy enough to find employment. Finally, our focus is on identifying public policies that might influence the perceived need to provide emergency shelter beds.  One possibly important policy lever is government-provided income support to the income-demographic group most likely to use emergency shelters….

…The estimated coefficient on our measure of housing affordability indicates that a one per cent increase in the ratio of social assistance income to rent is associated with a 1.15 per cent reduction in the ratio of shelter beds to adult population. An implication of this sensitivity is that increasing the annual amount of social assistance provided to a person identified as a single employable by $1,500 per year would, by increasing the ratio of income to rent, enable social agencies to close a total of 2,599 shelter beds across Canada, a reduction of 18 per cent….

An alternative policy – or perhaps one to be introduced in conjunction with the increase in income – would be to increase the size of the rent subsidy available to those with low Income.  Our results suggest that increasing rent subsidies by $100 per month would be sufficient to enable providers to close 2,975 shelter beds across Canada. Our two policy options therefore have similar effects.

DISCUSSION Our calculations suggest the potential efficacy of an approach that favours what might be broadly described as a market solution to shrinking the need for emergency shelter beds.  This is particularly so with respect to our suggestion to provide the very poor with a higher level of income support and allow them to purchase goods and services through the market.….What is important is that the income support enables the very poor the opportunity to be able to afford housing not otherwise available to them….Providing rent subsidies is another approach we have shown can be effective at shrinking the need for emergency shelter beds. That approach is somewhat more prescriptive – the very poor must use the support on housing – but is similar in the sense that rent subsidy effectively increases the income available to the very poor to purchase more of life’s necessities. If the declining stock of affordable housing is in part the result of rising income inequality and poverty, then providing the poor with income support in these ways is a direct way of addressing the cause of the affordable housing crisis.

This non-exhaustive list of possible influences on the low-end housing market emanating from public policy choices suggests that all levels of government have a role to play in addressing homelessness and that they have a wide variety of policy levers to adjust.  Policy-makers need not, therefore, focus too narrowly on just a few policy responses.  Policy responses that have more subtle and less direct influences on the housing market than, say, the publicly funded construction of low-income housing, may have far more pervasive influences on the housing market and hence homelessness.   What’s more, more subtle policy responses may prove to be less costly to the public treasury and may avoid the potential for direct government provision or subsidization of housing units to result in reductions in the unsubsidized housing stock….It is useful to emphasize that our suggestion to increase social assistance income is a one time expenditure made necessary by the failure of policy-makers to properly adjust those payments to inflation. For reasons that are unclear to us, provincial governments do not index social assistance payments to the cost of living in the same way they index income tax brackets relevant to better-off Canadians or pensions provided to seniors adjusted by the federal government. Instead, provincial governments periodically increase social assistance payments in a haphazard effort to enable the very poor to keep up with rising costs….Indexing social assistance payments to the costs of the key drivers of the welfare of the very poor – housing and food costs – would go a long way toward enabling them to stay housed and escape the necessity of having to sometimes rely on homeless shelters.

CONCLUSION Homelessness is an exceptionally complex social problem. It has root causes in the personal traits of those most likely at risk of a spell of homelessness and the structural factors that influence the housing options available to the poorest of the poor. The unintended consequences of public policies also play a role. Our focus in this paper has been on those persons who experience homelessness as a result of what we have described as structural factors, the state of housing and labour markets that destine the very poor to be unable to afford even minimum-quality housing.

Contrary to popular belief, most people who become homeless will remain so for a few days or weeks but not become homeless again. The chronically homeless (sic due to drug abuse, alcoholism, etc.) whether for long periods or with repeated episodes, are a minority of those experiencing homelessness. An implication is that the majority of emergency shelter beds are provided to meet the needs of people who experience homelessness for short and infrequent periods and do so as a result of poverty. Our results, and similar results from research using U.S. data, suggest that relatively modest public policies can make significant differences in the perceived need to provide shelter beds. Directing support toward those for whom housing costs consume a very large share of their low incomes can have a significant impact on the number of people experiencing homelessness and thus on the need for emergency shelter beds.

….Data on the total adult population aged 15 years and over, the total aboriginal population aged 15 years and over, and the number of recent international migrants to a city are from the 2011 National Household Survey (NHS) available on the Statistics Canada website at http://www12.statcan.gc.ca/census-recensement/index-eng.cfm .

A recent international migrant is a person who lived outside of Canada one year prior to the census reference data of May 10, 2011.’ (end of Kneebone/Wilkins info.)

From “Encyclopedia of Canadian Social Work” (books.google.ca)

‘…..low rates in Newfoundland reflect severe cuts in 1996 to benefit levels for single employable persons and the low rates in Alberta reflect the steady decline in benefit levels under the conservative provincial government…. the current reality of less generous social assistance provision in Canada is reflective of the global ascendance of neo-conservative philosophies and the accompanying pressures of neo-liberal economic policies. Ideologies emphasizing individual blames, rather than collective responsibility, foster more restrictive social programs.  Restrictions to Canadian social assistance programs began in 1990 with a federal cap to limit expenditures under the Canada Assistance Plan, closely followed by provincial/territorial cutbacks through tighter eligibility criteria, lower benefit levels, and more stringent conditions.’

An example of the deterioration of social policies in Alberta was the introduction of 2001 Alberta flat tax rate of 10%.  While most of upper income level persons benefited from the 10% flat rate, the tax rate for bottom level income earners went from 8% to 10%.

It appears that the most common recipients in need of social welfare are single employable and single parents, yet the most emphasis today by governments and politicians appears to be on children of all family types when majority of focus should be placed on single parents.

Too often, current social assistance programs fail to distinguish a single employable family unit  from a married or coupled persons without children family unit.  There is no recognition that it costs a single employable family unit seventy per cent to live of what it costs married or coupled persons without children family unit.  When reviewing the literature on social programs many only look at the family units of singles, single parents with children, singles with a disability and married or coupled parents with children in their analysis.  To achieve financial fairness for singles, single person family units finances in relation to married/coupled persons without children family units also needs to be analyzed.

The single employable adult population that is often financially compromised includes aboriginals and recent immigrants.  Immigrant singles will often be more financially compromised than married or coupled immigrants with or without children family units.  An example is immigrant singles without family supports in this country working multiple jobs in order to send money home to their families (i.e. to buy necessary medications).  Some of these singles as result of over work unintentionally will suffer illnesses such as strokes from undiagnosed high blood pressure or undiagnosed diabetes or even death because they have not sought medical attention throughout their intensive work schedules involving multiple jobs.

How many different ways can it be said that Canadian singles are feeling financial despair in this country, one of the major factors being housing?

Yet another example is the financial profile of Jessica, an age 54 Ontarian single with three grown children  in ‘Home Ownership Possible But Tight’ (buying-a-home).  She would like to buy a home in the $150,000 range which is  pretty much impossible except in small town Ontario.   This is the same profile as several other presented in this blog (real-financial-lives-of-singles) Jessica has a take income of $3,315 per month or almost $40,000 per year.  Her rental income is $877 per month.  She has a company defined contribution plan.  The financial planner estimates that on retirement she will have approximately $2,300 monthly income for expenses.  Without home ownership, how does a senior single live on $2,300 per month with $900 per month rent?  If singles are unable to support themselves with a $60,000 – $70,000 pre-tax income (more than $15 per hour minimum wage), how are those at lower levels supposed to afford housing, (rental or home ownership)?

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

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

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THIS BLOG POST

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

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

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

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

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

MoneySense Comments on Retirees Incomes

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

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

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

Detailed Financial Information

Couples

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

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

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

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

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

Singles

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

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

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

Qualifying Statements by MoneySense about the two articles

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

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

Table

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

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

moneysense cost of retiring well

Analysis of the Financial Profiles of Couples Versus Singles

Marital Status

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

Benefits

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

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

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

Taxes

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

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

Benefits to Families of Coupled People

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

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

Emergency Monies

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

Education, Education, Education!!!

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

Singles require 70% of the income/wealth of Couples

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

 How expensive is it to raise a child?

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

Profiling

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

 Happy, happy, happy!!!!!

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

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

FINAL STATEMENT

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

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

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

Posted on by
1

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

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

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

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

Alaska Permanent Funds Dividends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANALYSIS

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

SOLUTIONS

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

  • Eliminate children from these programs until they reach the age majority since they have not made any contributions to the coffers in the form of salaries or taxes; rather, they are using resources such as education instead of contributing to them.
  • Top up benefits to singles at rate of 70 percent 1.4 Market Basket Measure to that of married/coupled persons as it costs more for singles to live than married/coupled persons living as a single unit (updated August 31, 2018).

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

 

HOW MARITAL STATUS IMPACTS DEDUCTIONS, CREDITS FOR MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS

Posted on by
1

HOW MARITAL STATUS IMPACTS DEDUCTIONS, CREDITS FOR MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS

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

(While researching online for information on last two posts, this article came up:   “Love and taxes: Canadians confused on how marital status impacts deductions, credits” by Darah Hansen and published in Yahoo Finances on February 12, 2016 just before Valentine’s day.  This article and the comments following the article provide some interesting insight into thoughts of Canadian citizens on reporting of marital status on income tax forms.  This article and comments is also a good follow-up to the information entered in the last two posts.

Comments of the author of this post are shown in italics.)

Quotes From Article

Quote from article states:

  • ‘Recent survey by Leger, on behalf of H&R Block Canada, found that more than half of us mistakenly think that married and common-law spouses can file a joint return to save money on their taxes. Another 40 per cent believe it’s up to us to decide whether to claim our marital status on our tax returns, while a handful of respondents doubt the CRA (Canada Revenue Agency) has guidelines to determine that status.
  • Couples are required by law to check the correct status box in tax forms.
  • Family incomes in Canada are not combined for the purpose of calculating tax; however, they can be for the purpose of calculating income-tested benefits, such as the GST/HST credit or the National Child Benefit supplement.
  • Couples also stand to benefit from combining their charitable donations, transit passes and medical expenses.
  • And, new this year, parents of children under 18 years stand to gain from a newly announced federal tax credit. Often referred to as the “family tax cut”, the new measure allows a higher earning spouse to transfer in kind up to $50,000 in income to his or her spouse in order to collect a tax credit of up to $2,000.Canadian taxpayers are required by law to answer the marital status question correctly.  “If you lie, it’s tax fraud,” says Golombek…..
  • To be considered common-law, two people must live together in a conjugal relationship for 12 months or immediately if you have a child together. If you receive benefits you are not entitled to because of an incorrect marital status, you can bank on being asked to repay them.
  • One final misconception: About 44 per cent of Canadians believe that once you are divorced, you can claim as single the following year. But once you have filed as married, you can never claim single. You are instead classified as separated, divorced or widowed’, (end of quote).

Comments from Readers

The comments following the article, of which there were many, resulted in very different viewpoints.  Indeed, some comments turned out to be very derogatory and inflammatory as often occurs in forums of this kind.  Families with children call singles ‘selfish’ and single call families with children ‘breeders’, etc.  Analysis of the comments revealed some commonalities.

A large majority of Canadian citizens, it seems, don’t have a clue about declaration of their marital status on income tax forms, especially those that are married, divorced, separated, or living common-law.  Canada Revenue Agency (CRA) has very clear definitions of marital status, so why the confusion?

Some of the reasons why incorrect reporting of marital status on income tax forms are as follows, (these are comments that were submitted by the readers):

Unhealthy or unequal relationships with their significant other.  

  • One comment:  ‘good luck in filling as common-law in my case my partner refuses to file common-law, said his taxes are complicated, and we been together now for 5 years. I look at it he is hiding something and don’t want me to know his business.’

Some don’t seem to want to record their marital status as outlined in CRA rules. One of the biggest issues on recording marital status seems to revolve around those that are divorced/separated and what they will have to give to the other spouse in the way of child and spousal support.

  • ‘Once you are legally married you can never again claim “single”. If you divorce, you must say “divorced”, even if you were divorced 40 years ago. If you remarry, of course, you then check the “married” box once again. Until your partner dies, whereby you become “widowed” until you remarry or die yourself.  To be “common law” you will have been living together for 12 months prior to filing your taxes, – or right away if you have a child together and it happens to be less than that.  (Even if divorced for many year, marital status would still be divorced).’
  • ‘Making a “stupid decision” not to inform CRA about this issue will often come back to bite you.’
  • ‘There are more tax breaks for single moms then for being married. It is actually scary to tell them when you finally do get married. There goes everything.’
  • ‘Seems strange, usually you marry the mom not the kids. Not sure why she would stop getting benefits to support her kids. Note to self, stay clear of single moms and the tax man will pin you with the responsibility.’
  • ‘So why (does)  Revenue Canada have different category for divorced people? to have a reason to garnish…  They do this because people who are separated or divorced often have separation agreements/court orders for making support payments. Spousal support payments are taxable in the hands of the recipient and deductible for the payer. Since there are no slips that go with these payments they want to make sure that both parties are claiming it or including it correctly (i.e. not just being deducted by the payer and not included in income for the recipient).’

Many income tax filers have no clue what benefits they will get and how marital status will affect those benefits.  Married/coupled persons don’t seem to realize they will receive more benefits throughout their married/coupled lives than will singles, particularly ‘ever’ (never married, no kids) singles.

  • ‘Single working professionals get taxed the hardest with the fewest deductions.’
  • ‘There is no benefit in being married. Stay single especially single mothers.’ (Married/coupled persons seem to never be happy with the benefits they get).
  • ‘don’t forget to add to move in with your boyfriend either, if you want the benefits or to minimize your tax, of course based on that rationale they should struggle on one income just to get benefits is quite irrational thinking.’  (This presumably was a tongue-in-cheek remark to the above comment.)
  • ‘You may not see the benefits of being married when it comes to taxes, but financially there are a lot of benefits to not be single. Sharing costs like same  housing is huge and when finances are done with purpose in mind can lead to wealth creation.’ (This is known as being able to live more cheaply because of economies of scale-Six Reasons why Married/Coupled Persons able to Achieve More Wealth). six-reasons-why-married-coupled-persons-are-able-to-achieve-wealth/
  • ‘But there is no denying  that two people going in the direction accomplish way more than one person by him/herself….. those who stay together are better off statistically in a financial sense than those who go about it alone.’ (This is because of  ability to accumulate wealth times two persons and ‘rule of 72’ -Six Reasons why Married/Coupled Persons able to Achieve More Wealth)
  • ‘Couples can transfer unused credits to each other. Singles lose unused tax credits.’  (This is because of marital manna benefits – Six Reasons why \Married/Coupled Persons able to Achieve More Wealth)
  • ‘I was once told by my neighbour that he and his wife would be better off financially if they divorced. Obviously not ALL Canadians are confused about tax credits and deductions. (Next comment) Not so. Couples can transfer unused credits to each other. Singles lose unused tax credits.’  (This is known as manipulation of assets as stated in ‘Six Reasons why Married/Coupled Persons able to Achieve More Wealth).
  • ‘I have never paid more than what I owe based on my income whether single, married or divorced. The only difference it makes is for benefits like GST rebates, etc….’
  • ‘Family incomes in Canada are not combined for the purpose of calculating tax.’  
  • ‘They are only combined for potential benefits such as GST tax credits… etc…..you can transfer unused tax credits to lower the spouse’s taxable income, thereby reducing their taxes. CRA combines them for the purpose of calculating GIS benefits and HST refunds.’

Some tax filers choose to falsely record their marital status, though they know they are committing fraud.

  • ‘Most Canadians play dumb as they are fully aware they are breaking the rules and pretend like they didn’t know. They cheat hoping they will not get caught.’
  • ‘If you are married the tax form asks for your spouse’s name, SIN and whatever.’
  • .It’s not your fault you didn’t get caught. It is your fault for claiming single while married. Let me simplify this for you. Two scenarios. Husband and wife. Both make $35k. If they claim single each pays tax on $35k. If they claim married EACH pays tax on $35k. The combining is only for tax credit purposes. Percents don’t change due to marriage or not. Govt fraud is irrelevant to this conversation. And if it is true… then so what … two wrongs make a right? Seriously you need to get professional advice. Just because you have not ‘been caught’ yet does not mean it won’t happen. You are cheating and if you are getting tax credits fraudulently, you will pay a penalty if caught.
  • For those who don’t think there are repercussions to false filing, you can view the convictions from each province at Google “CRA Criminal investigations actions, charges, and convictions”.

Many more comments were made and are too numerous to be included here.

CONCLUSIONS

  • If there is confusion about how to record marital status on tax forms, get professional help.
  • Incorrect filing of marital status on tax forms constitutes fraud.
  • Education, education, education – married/coupled persons need to educate themselves on all the benefits they receive from date of marriage to after their spouse is deceased.  They need to realize that singles have been left out of financial formulas and do not receive benefits such as transfer of spousal credits, pension splitting, tax relief if one spouse is in nursing home, etc. even though it costs singles more to live than married/coupled persons living as a single unit.
  • Singles deserve to be included in financial formulas at 70% of that given to married/coupled persons.  Many singles have worked throughout their entire lives  (35, 40, 45 years) and,with their taxes have supported  married/coupled persons and their families; therefore singles deserve equal financial representation in financial formulas.
  • Problems that divorced/separated persons have with spousal/child support, etc. should not be the problem of singles and should not be a reason to say that ‘singles’ are lying on tax forms (especially ‘ever’ singles who only have one option to record on tax forms, that is ‘single’).

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

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

Posted on by
6

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

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

This blog post is a comment on the Broadbent Institute Report on the economic circumstances of Canadian seniors.  The Broadbent Institute is a left-leaning social democratic think tank founded by Ed Broadbent who was a past leader of the New Democratic Party .  It describes itself as an independent, non-partisan organization championing progressive change through the promotion of democracy, equality, and sustainability and the training of a new generation of leaders.  Its mission is to “Support, develop, and promote social democratic principles for the 21st century”, “Propose new solutions for a more equal society”, and “Equip a new generation of progressive campaigners & thinkers with the tools they need to build a social democratic society through training and education”.

This post addresses excerpts from the report first (Part 1), and then is followed by comments on the report (Part 2).

COMMENTS ON  REPORT – PART 2 OF 2

In February, 2016 the Broadbent Institute in Canada and Richard Shillington of Tristat Resources published the report:  “An Analysis of the Economic Circumstances of Canadian Seniors”.       (analysis_of_the_economic_circumstances_of_canadian_seniors)

The report information is mainly directed towards poverty of seniors without an employer pension plan (roughly 47 per cent) and therefore, many of these seniors have wholly inadequate retirement savings.

(It should be noted in the report that single seniors does not refer to marital status, but the fact that they live alone.  Therefore, single seniors includes ‘ever’-never married, no kids-singles, divorced/separated, and widowed seniors living alone).

Review of the report reveals some points that are very disconcerting.

  • The true facts of what it costs singles to live is under-reported.  Married/coupled persons and, indeed, the author of the Broadbent report do not seem to realize that the widowed (married/coupled persons whose spouses are deceased) are a part of the singles population.  It is a well known fact that it costs singles approximately 70 per cent of what it costs married/coupled persons to live as a single unit.  This fact is never addressed in the report. (Using LIM 11.1 percent of seniors live in poverty–719,000 seniors:  419,000 singles and 250,000 living in an economic family.  The poverty is astonishingly high at almost 30 per cent for senior singles without employer pension plans).  (Widowed persons and the extra benefits they get are discussed later in this post).
  • All the extra benefits that have been given to married/coupled persons are never addressed.  Governments continue to create financial silos where more and more benefits are given to married/coupled persons even though they are able to live with less because of economies of scale, but not to singles resulting in financial inequality.  (Following table was updated on March 8, 2016 with additional information).

financial silos6

  • It is ludicrous that this report does not treat home equity as a retirement asset.  Those who have to rent are at a much greater financial disadvantage than those who own their own home.  Quote from report : “ …..Many of those who argue that there is no looming pension crisis have included home equity as a liquid asset.  This analysis has not treated home equity as a retirement asset because the replacement rate analysis has as its objective an income that allows one to enjoy a lifestyle comparable to that which existed pre-retirement.  We do not include home equity here because we accept that the pre-retirement lifestyle for many middle- and moderate-income Canadians include continued homeownership”, (Page 19).

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

  • The average household total income for couple-family households was about twice that of non-family households (which were primarily one-person households) and lone-parent households ($101,000 per year versus $43,000 per year and $55,000 per year respectively).  Thus, while lone-parent households and non-family households had a lower cost than couple-family households, the lower household total income results in a higher proportion exceeding the affordability threshold”.
  • Approximately 69 per cent of Canadians own their own home.  About  four out of five (82.4%) married/coupled people own their own home, while less than half (48.5%) of non-family households (singles) own their dwellings.  Just over half (55.6%) of lone-parent households own their dwelling.  (It stands to reason that more senior married/coupled and widowed persons will own their own homes, while senior singles–‘ever’ single and early divorced)–are more likely to have to rent placing them in greater income inequality and a lower standard of living and quality of life). Regardless of housing tenure, the proportion of non-family households and lone-parent households that paid 30% or more of total income towards shelter costs was about twice the proportion of the couple-family households.
  • Quote “approximately 56.4 per cent of the senior population (5 million total seniors in 2011) live as part of a couple and about 24.6 per cent of the senior population live alone (excludes those living with someone else, in senior citizen facilities and collective housing).

Singles are constantly told to ‘go live with someone’ when they have difficulties paying for housing; meanwhile married/coupled and widowed persons may be living in their big houses (enjoying the same lifestyle they had before pre-retirement) and seeking help with paying their taxes while refusing to move to a less expensive dwelling.  (senior-singles-pay-more-part-3-of-4)

  • It is ludicrous for this report to state that seventy per cent  income replacement should be a benchmark in the formulas.  Seventy per cent income replacement is entirely different for those who own their own home versus those who rent.  It is selfish to think that the rich and married/coupled persons should be able to live same lifestyle post-retirement as pre-retirement when singles and early divorced generally will have a poorer lifestyle throughout their entire lives.

An example is the Financial Post financial evaluation “Bright Future Despite Big Debt, Small Income” published in Calgary Herald on February 20, 2016 where Ontario young couple’s after tax income is $4,800 per month and their food budget is $800 and entertainment $160 per month for two people.  Just these two items are 20 per cent of their budget.  Either they live in an area with very high food costs or they are living the high life for one of the necessities of life in Maslow’s Hierarchy of need.  Seventy per cent replacement at retirement would give this couple an unreasonably high style of life for food in comparison to singles.   Reader letter mentioned above in ‘senior-singles-pay-more-part 3-of-4’ link suggested singles should be able to live on just $200 per month for food.

  • It is ludicrous to suggest that persons without employer pension plans cannot save, especially those with incomes over $100,000.

Quote from report:  “For those with incomes in $50,000-$100,000 range, the median value (savings) is only $21,000” (Page 3).

If those with pension plans have forced saving, it it is ridiculous to say that those without pension plans are not able to save.  For example, a $75,000 before-tax income may result in $600-$700 per month being deducted from pay cheque (employer deductions are excluded in this discussion).   It is also ridiculous to say that in this First World country persons with $100,000 plus incomes cannot save.  One of the principles of good finances is to save 10 per cent.  Whole report promotes greed of looking for more benefits and not planning for the future if there is no plan for saving during working years.

  • Reporting false information on marital status is a crime.  Quote from report states:  “Table 7 represents the results of increasing the single and married GIS amounts by the same percentage.  One should keep in mind that there is an incentive for seniors to appear as singles to governments even if they are living as a couple.  This is because the GIS for senior couples is less than twice the amount for singles.  An increase in the GIS for singles only (with no increase for couples) would increase this so-called ‘tax on marriage’ and associated incentives.  This would encourage couples to hide their cohabitation from the authorities for financial reasons”, (Page 21).

GIS for senior couples should, repeat, should be less than twice the amount for singles.  Singles (particularly ‘ever’ and early divorced singles including the author of this blog) have worked very hard to have financial formulas include singles at 70 per cent of married/coupled persons living as a single unit.  The GIS for senior singles is more than married/coupled persons because it costs more for singles (including widowed persons)  to live than it does for married/coupled persons living as a single unit.  Why can’t married/coupled persons understand this?  When married/widowed persons become widowed their living costs will go up.

The statement  “An increase in the GIS for singles only (with no increase for couples) would increase this so-called ‘tax on marriage’ and associated incentives. This would encourage couples to hide their cohabitation from the authorities for financial reasons” is absurd and selfish.  Tax on marriage, why can’t married/coupled persons realize all the extra benefits they receive as outlined in table above???  When is ‘enough’ ever going to be ‘enough’ for them???

The notation (# 28) at the bottom of page 21 states:  “While legislation treats those cohabiting the same regardless of their marital status, it is easier to deceive the government if you are not married”.  This statement is false and backwards.  If it is anyone being deceitful, it is the married/coupled persons.  Can someone explain why it would be easier to deceive the government if you are not married (‘ever’ single)?  The issue with false reporting lies with those who are married/coupled, divorced or separated.  They are trying to ‘milk’ the system by falsely reporting their marital status even though the Canada Revenue income tax rules clearly define the parameters of marital status.

False reporting is a crime.  It would be very easy to track deceit by following income tax declaration of marital status and address of residence over several years.  Deceit of married/coupled persons would incrementally increase the monetary value they would receive from the deceit as it costs them less to live as a couple than it does single persons.

It seems married/coupled persons want it all even if they have to lie about it.  So what will they do when their spouse goes to a nursing home or is deceased?  In order to collect the benefits they are entitled to as one spouse living at home and the the other in a nursing home and widowers, they will need to lie again and change their marital status from single to married/coupled or widowed when filing their income taxes.

‘Ever’ singles (never married, no kids) throughout their entire working lives pay same amount of taxes as each individual (with equal income to the single person) reporting income tax in a married/coupled relationship and have supported/subsidized families who use mom/baby hospital care, EI benefits for maternal/paternal leaves, etc.  They are never recognized for their tax support and for using less resources than families.  Since singles have paid supportive taxes throughout their entire working lives, they deserve to live with the same financial dignity and respect as seniors and as married/coupled persons.  As seniors, ‘ever’ singles deserve to have their own space and their own bathroom and not be forced to cohabitate with other persons.

The real financial lives of singles is revealed when a simple math calculation is used for the targeted tax relief where a single senior can now earn $20,360 and a senior couple $40,720 before paying federal income tax.  This so called tax relief for seniors allows federal tax relief for singles equal to $1,697 per month and for senior couples $3,393 per month.  The tax relief for senior singles hardly covers a rent or mortgage payment of $1,200 and $250 for food per month (Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need), but amply covers this amount for a senior couple.  For a couple $1200 for rent or mortgage and $500 for food leaves $1693 (or 50% of $40,000) for other necessities and maybe even a nice little vacation all tax free.

CONCLUSION

It is incredible how in just a few paragraphs a think-tank can undo the hard work that singles have been trying to achieve in seeking financial equality.  Think-tanks and financial gurus continue to practice financial illiteracy on what it truly costs singles to live.   (false-assumptions-four-ways-seniors-singles-lose out) and (financial-gurus-financially-illiterate-about-singles-finances)

Even though the final statement of the report states:  “The GIS is the most effective federal mechanism in the short term for reducing the poverty rate and the impact of poverty on seniors, and it can be targeted at senior singles who need it the most”, there are many shortcomings to this report.

This report is encouraging irresponsible financial behavior.  It is morally, ethically and socially reprehensible in a First world country to say that one cannot save with an income over $100,000 and to promote financial inequality and discrimination of singles.

The Broadbent Institute is supposed to be about ‘a more equal society’, so where is the financial equality?

SOLUTIONS

In order to ensure financial equality between singles (including widowers) and married/coupled persons the following measures need to be taken:

    • change financial formulas so that senior singles receive 70 per cent of whatever is given to married/coupled senior persons as it costs more for singles to live than it does married/coupled persons because of economies of scale
    • financial formulas should be revised to include all senior persons regardless of marital status in one financial formula.  To eliminate financial silos that benefit married/coupled persons most, delete benefits already given to married/coupled persons such as pension splitting (benefits the rich most) so that there is a level financial playing field for all regardless of marital status. (It is understood that it is expensive to raise children and  benefits given for children should last for first twenty years of the life of the child.  However, beyond the twenty years of the children, any other benefits given to married/coupled persons should be deleted or should also be given equally to singles at rate of 70 per cent)
    • create a side-by-side list of all possible benefits under categories of married/coupled, widowed and single and analyze the total value of benefits in each category (see table above).  Financial formulas should be created equally for all categories, not just the married/coupled and widowed.
    • delete allowance benefit that has been ruled to be discriminatory by the courts
    • education, education and more education on financial literacy for singles.  Think tanks, financial gurus and married/coupled people need to educate themselves on what it really costs singles to live.

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

 

 

FAMILY: INCLUSIONARY OR EXCLUSIONARY TERM AND FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION

Posted on by
1

FAMILY:  INCLUSIONARY OR EXCLUSIONARY TERM AND FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION

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

Today, February 15, is designated Family Day in Canada and was originally created to give people time to spend with their families, but also provides a day off between New Year’s Day and Good Friday as they are approximately three months apart.

The word ‘family’  can have many different meanings.  One definition is “a fundamental social group in society typically consisting of one or two parents and their children.” While this definition is a traditional definition, there are other family units excluded by this definition, such as couples without children or other variations on the family unit. Another definition is “two or more people who share goals and values, have long-term commitments to one another and reside usually in the same dwelling.”  In addition to a more universal family definition, there are many who consider a group of friends to be family, and adults who consider pets also to be members of the family unit.

The Statistics Canada definition of ‘family’ indicates there must be two persons legally living together to be defined as a family.  When census information is collated, the population is called:  “Census families and persons not in census families”.  Singles are included in the “persons not in census family” category.

For Canada Revenue Agency income tax purposes, singles are persons who have never married or whose marriage has been legally annulled.  (Those who  live with a common-law partner are not included in this category).

The word ‘family’ can be inclusionary or exclusionary depending on the closeness (or distance) of the relationship of the persons in the family unit.

It is interesting to note that present political discussions both in Canada and the USA talk about the financial decline of the ‘middle class family”.  Singles and low income are left out the discussion.  Many benefits have been given to the married/coupled persons and family units with children, but singles are generally left out of the benefits or receive less in benefits.

An example of financial discrimination in Canada is the targeted tax relief for seniors where senior singles pay no tax on $20,000 and married/coupled seniors pay no tax on $40,000.  For single seniors this amounts to only $1,700 per month, but for married/coupled seniors this amounts to approximately $3,400 per month.  Living costs are inadequately covered for singles, but are more adequately covered for married/coupled seniors.  It is a well known fact that singles require approximately 70% of living costs for married/coupled persons living together as a family unit.

The mentality of government, decision makers, businesses and families in this country is to serve only the rich and middle class families while generally ignoring singles, low income and no income individuals and families.   Families will often talk about how important the family unit is for them in regards to 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.  These disadvantaged persons are tossed out or are less important in financial  formulas and decision-making processes.

CONCLUSION

The definition of family as to whether it is inclusionary or exclusionary is in ‘the eye of the beholder’ and depends on which ‘side of the fence’ is beholder is on.   An exclusionary example is the one given above on targeted tax relief.  The financial ‘family’ by devaluing singles and low income takes on a ‘Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde’ persona, or also could be said to take on an ‘about-face’ persona or doing the exact opposite where the greed of business and personal gain takes on more importance than treasured family values.

Financial fairness of singles, low income and disadvantaged would be better served if they were financially treated as equal family members instead of being financially categorized as ‘worth less’ or ‘worthless’ to the rich and married/coupled persons in financial formulas. This would give more truth to why Family Day is celebrated on this day of February 15.

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

 

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

Posted on by
4

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

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

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

EXAMPLES OF FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION

  • TARGETED TAX RELIEF PROGRAMS FOR SENIORS-The Federal Conservative government has a targeted tax relief program where a single senior can now earn $20,360 and a senior couple $40,720 before paying federal income tax.  Program claims that approximately 400,000 seniors (or 7 to 8% of total Canadian seniors) have been removed from the tax rolls altogether.  This so called tax relief for seniors allows federal tax relief for senior singles equal to $1,697 per month and for senior couples $3,393 per month.

The tax relief for senior singles hardly covers a rent or mortgage payment of $1,200 and $250 for food per month (Maslow’s Hierarchy of Need), but amply covers this amount for a senior couple.  For a couple $1200 for rent or mortgage and $500 for food leaves $1693 (or 50% of $40,000) for other necessities and medications and maybe even a nice little vacation all tax free.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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