Author Archives: ffswpadmin

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.

OPINION LETTER ‘LIES AND IGNORANCE’ IN RESPONSE TO ‘NEWSPAPER PROMOTES THE LIE’ ON LGBTQ

Posted on by
Reply

OPINION LETTER ‘LIES AND IGNORANCE’ IN RESPONSE TO OPINION LETTER ‘NEWSPAPER PROMOTES THE LIE’ ON LGBTQ

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

(This opinion letter in response to a previous opinion letter was published in local newspaper on May 12, 2016 under title ‘Lies and Ignorance’.   The premise of the first opinion letter was that there is no science that proves homosexuality and God views homosexuality as a sin.  Since there is a limit to words that can be published, additional comments have been added here in italics.)

Regarding local newspaper opinion letter, May 5, 2016 “Newspaper promotes the lie”, there are lies and there is ignorance.

During biblical times, there were no instruments such as CAT Scans and MRIs.  In modern times use of these instruments has shown that lesbian brains are more like male heterosexual brains.  Homosexual male brains are more like heterosexual female brains. The level of testosterone also has an impact on how sex of fetus will be determined during human fetal maturation.

There are many examples where sex determination goes awry, for example, Hermaphroditism where there are both male and female parts in one individual, fish being almost equal in female and male sex upstream in Lethbridge, but more female fish downstream, male fetuses being aborted in Sarnia, Ontario industrial area, and so on.  In this beautiful province, Red Deer has had decidedly poor air quality over several years.  Who knows what impact this has on fetal development?  (“ What Science Knows About Homosexuality” is an excellent reference on this subject-including interesting piece of , information, every fetus starts out as female and then becomes male or remains female depending on level of testosterone during fetal maturation-added Sept. 15/16).  Add link

The writer states:  “I think God has an edge on over all of us”.  Yes, He does, but He also requires us to use our critical thinking skills and smarts to come to correct instead of ignorant and erroneous statements.

The writer states his views are supported by science, yet he does not give one example from science.  He does correctly state that the LGBT community has affected society.  Absolutely it has.  One example is financial.  The female pairing of the LGBT community may financially mean female paired couples will earn less than male paired couples because women are still consistently paid less than men for equal jobs.  This may result in more poverty for female paired couples and families.   This is possibly exacerbated by God-fearing, right winged non-union business persons who seem to have no problem with paying women less for equal  work.  ‘Financial fairness for singles’ may also be impacted as married and coupled persons continually get more financial benefits regardless of sexual orientation than singles, heterosexual or LGBTQ.

An indelible statement made by a LGBTQ person is reproduced here. “Why would anyone choose to be gay?  To have to live your life with prejudice, hatred and discriminatory practices is not how anyone would choose to live”.  In the eyes of God, everyone is equal regardless of sexual orientation.

By the way,  this article is written by a God-fearing heterosexual.

(Additional comment:  When the religious community makes statement that God says homosexuality is a sin, they forget to mention that adultery is mentioned with same equality as homosexuality as a sin.  In fact, adultery is one of the Ten Commandments – Thou shalt not commit adultery.  When homosexuality is discussed, adultery needs to be discussed at the same level and same veracity as homosexuality.)

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

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

Posted on by
2

FORT MCMURRAY FIRE DISASTER ASSISTANCE EQUALS POVERTY FOR SINGLES

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

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

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

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

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

fort mcmurray financial assistance

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

STEREOTYPING OF SINGLES CONTINUES EVEN IN TRAGIC TIMES

Posted on by
Reply

STEREOTYPING OF SINGLES CONTINUES EVEN IN TRAGIC TIMES

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

It is interesting how tragic events like the Fort McMurray fires in Alberta, Canada can produce many emotions.  The emotions can range from spectrum of profound gratefulness for being alive to debasement by stating this was karma and everything that happened was deserved (because of the nature of this city being responsible for the environmental impact of oil sands development causing climate change).

It is interesting how the media can soundly decry that this debasement is wrong, but at the same time produce stereotypical comments that seem to be directed towards singles, and in this case males.

The writer of article ‘Real Fort McMurray no myth or symbol, just a beloved home’ (pressreader) writes a very good article about how the debasing comments are so wrong and do nothing to promote a just humane society.  However, the stereotypical comments (also myths, metaphors and symbols) about single males also are just as debasing:

“For some, it’s clear, Fort McMurray seems a  national embarrassment –  the rowdy cousin who arrives at your wedding driving an F-350, drinks too much, and does the bridesmaid under the table.  The cousin you only invited in the expectation that he would bring a thumping big cheque to the party.

Rich, brash, over-sexed, unsophisticated and politically mortifying – that’s the Fort McMurray in the popular imagination of its detractors…… “

The writer does go on to state that many from all across Canada, particularly Atlantic Canada, do recognize the debt they owe to the city for employment and other benefits it has provided.  Those who choose to negatively comment do so because:

“Perhaps they resent Fort McMurray’s noveau riches.  To admit that you owe someone something is to acknowledge their dominance and your own lack of power.  Perhaps it’s easier to mock those who live there as rednecks and rubes……Fort McMurray isn’t a myth or a metaphor.  It isn’t a series of tired stereotypes and a convenient political symbol…..It’s a multicultural, vibrant city full of hard-working men and women….They love the challenge and the excitement – the camaraderie of a young community, full, not just of young partyers partying hard, but of young families, building their futures.  And sometimes a loud cousin makes a wedding a lot more fun…..”

The irony of this article is that more than one stereotype has been represented.  First, Fort McMurray deserves to be burned, second, presumably there are many single rich over-sexed partying males who make up Fort McMurray, and third, the only reason to invite cousins who do the bridesmaid to your wedding is the expectation that he would bring a thumping big cheque to the party (myth that singles are rich).

The writer of this article clearly states that stereotypes and myths are damaging and do not belong in society as a whole.  The reference to the cousin and over-sexed rich male was probably meant to be funny, but it not funny to those singles who are tired of being vilified, intentionally or unintentionally, in the media and by those who think that immediately upon marriage, married persons become decent respectful human beings. Other stereotypes include (profiling)

If stereotypes about singles are going to continually be showcased, how about at the same time giving some examples of how singles, as well as families, did brave and heroic acts during this tragic event?

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

 

‘SELECTIVE’ DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATORY FOR SINGLES AND THE POOR

Posted on by
6

‘SELECTIVE’ DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATORY FOR SINGLES AND THE POOR

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

Democratic socialism or socialized democracy has achieved some very good things for equalization of social rights in Canada such as the Canada Pension  Plan, Employment Insurance Plan and universal public healthcare as well as human rights policies.  Also included are benefits meeting the current basic needs of society for all – care for the elderly, school systems and social security systems such as Old Age Security and Guaranteed Income Supplement.  This has resulted in improving the lives of women, First Nations, racialized Canadians, the poor and the elderly by social equalization.

Worker benefits won by unions have greatly benefited fairness in working conditions: such as equal pay for equal work, weekends off, lunch and work breaks, vacation and sick leave, minimum wage, eight hour working  day, overtime pay, child labor laws, safety and health laws,workers compensation, pensions, health care insurance, etc.  The list goes on and on.

Unfortunately, some of  the social and economic equalization has been undone by governments giving tax cuts to profitable corporations and high income individuals, giving boutique tax credits to only certain parts of the population and replacing progressive tax systems with flat tax systems.  Results of unequal social benefits include lack of affordable housing (violating Maslow’s hierarchy of basic needs), high student debt and less  job security.

Raising the minimum wage to $15 an hour has been a contentious issue.  The ruling social democratic party in the province has said it is not fair for a single parent to work 50 hours a week and then have to stop at the foodbank to feed the family.  Review of research states the premise behind ‘a minimum wage policy supported by a strong social policy is an efficient mechanism against poverty and income erosion of the poorest households.  Minimum wage is one of the instruments which can control wage disparity and in this way reduce income inequality’.

An editorial view in the Calgary Herald, April 22, 2018  ‘Meddling with Wages’ (meddling-with-wages) argues against increasing the minimum wage :

‘a higher minimum wage of $15 will add further pain to employers and hurt those the measure is intended to benefit.’

The editorial implies that the single parent referred to in above paragraph does not happen very often and only occurs for two per cent of the provincial population.  The editorial  then goes on to state that most of the two per cent are not single parents, but youth getting a start in the labour force by working part time while living at home.

‘ The minimum wage was never intended to be something a single person could support a family on.  Raising the minimum wage….further imperils the the viability of small businesses and creating greater incentive to trim by shedding jobs and cutting hours.

Canadians are helping low-income families through generous supports from both the federal and provincial governments .  More should be done to lift people out of poverty, of course, but it should be achieved with programs that boost their skills and increase their employability.  It should  not be done by clumsy government meddling.’

Blog author’s comments:  Writer states that the minimum wage was  never intended to be something a single person could support a family on. Really?  REALLY?   The premise behind a minimum wage policy supported by a strong social policy is an efficient mechanism against poverty and income erosion of the poorest households.  Minimum wage is one of the instruments which can control wage disparity and in this way reduces income inequality.  To say that a young person still living at home does not deserve a wage equivalent to a single parent is like saying all those persons working in sweatshops in Bangladesh also don’t deserve a wage equivalent to the same jobs performed in non-third world countries.  Also, raising the minimum wage helps the economy through increased spending on the necessities of life and more taxes being paid to support social programs.

Two reader comments put a proper perspective on the results of not increasing the minimum wage.  First comment (from Canadian Poverty Institute at Ambrose University) ‘Businesses should pay decent wages’ (pressreader):

 ‘…..If  minimum wage had kept up with inflation, it would be around $15 today.  While education and training programs may reduce poverty, demands for austerity would cut exactly these programs.  In abdicating responsibility to pay decent wages, business uploads the cost of low wages to government.  Poverty costs the provincial government $7-9 billion annually.

A business model based on poverty wages is untenable. Decent wages are the cost of doing business.

Ensuring a decent income is a shared responsibility.  Individuals are doing their part by working.  Business must do its part by paying people appropriately, not relying on government and taxpayers to pick up the tab.’

 

Opinion letter from second reader ‘Creating a more humane province’ (pressreader):

‘By concentrating heavily on the economics of the minimum wage (and indeed, low wages in general), the editorial misses the central point that wages are more about increased opportunity for inclusion and participation.  To deny an expansion of these dimensions to low-income workers, simply because of stereotypes, economic short-termism and the assertion that only two per cent of people actually work for minimum wage, reflects a fundamental misunderstanding of what it means to be a citizen of this province.

I’m glad our provincial government continues to act in the interests of ordinary citizens and realize that the expansion of justice has a cost.  A higher minimum wage, together with the provision of living wages, is the price we can and should pay for the creation of a more just, humane and inclusive province.’

Then there are those who have no regard for left-wing politics.  An example is Calgary Herald editorial comment: ‘How soon we forget the economic carnage of left-wing policies’ (calgaryherald). The argument made is that:

‘those who ignore socialist history are doomed to repeat it…..If nobody had ever tried left-wing policies before, we might be justified in giving this “new” socialism a chance.  Unfortunately, the world has long been a laboratory for socialist policies with mostly disastrous results.

Democratic socialism has left valuable legacies – like subsidized, widely available health care and education – but also has created a lot of economic carnage.  During the 1970s, big-spending, left-wing governments in Canada, Scandinavia and Great Britain created high unemployment and sluggish growth before buckling under the weight of their taxes and debt…

……The province’s premier doesn’t understand, or perhaps doesn’t care, that raising taxes makes struggling citizens poorer, and just transfers wealth from the already wounded private sector to the public sector.

She wants to appease her union comrades by massively raising the minimum wage , which will raise inflation , hurt less profitable industries and reduce employment…..How did our collective memories become so short?’

Reader’s opinion letter ‘Right-wing policies fail’ (pressreader) in response to this editorial states:

 ‘This column is nonsense….The highest rate of unemployment in the U.K. in recent years were under the reign of Margaret Thatcher.  Currently, the only people who benefit from the right wing U.K. government’s policies are the rich.

Food banks, unknown in my younger years, are common and very necessary.

It’s also true that the province’s unemployment rate is unacceptable, but to criticize the premier is wrong.  If our economy had been less dependent on oil and gas, we would be better off.

The right-wing trickle-down economic theory is utterly discredited.’

‘SELECTIVE’ DEMOCRATIC SOCIALISM

As noted in the above, there has been much that has been good about democratic socialism, but there also has been negative outcomes to democratic socialism.  One negative is what we will call ‘selective’ democratic socialism  where certain members of society get more social benefits than others.

Examples of ‘selective’ democratic socialism:

Women not being paid same amount as men for same job – Unions have forced the private sector to enforce social benefits such as eight hour day, overtime pay, vacation and sick pay, etc., and  above all equal pay for equal work, but the private sector in many cases still has neglected to pay women the same wage for doing same job as men.

There are many who object to the wages and pensions federal and provincial civil and public servants receive. They say these employees are paid too much money, thus causing economic concerns.  The irony of this negativity is that one reason why the budgets for civil, public and union employees is higher is that women are actually paid the same wage as men doing the same job.

It would be nice if right-wing financial think tanks used some outside the box thinking and conducted studies on how much of the budgets of unionized employees is dedicated to paying women equally to men.  Or, vice versa, how much more money would it take to pay women in the private sector equally to men?

Keep minimum wages low and don’t  consider living wages – ‘Selective’ democratic socialism allows the top employees (elite one per cent and the rich) to outpace wages of those at the bottom.  Then, because they have the money to do so, they will bypass the democratic social programs of health care and public schools to pay for elite services of private health care and private schools.

Married/Coupled person get more benefits than singles and the poor (singles often excluded from these benefits) – Many persons leaning to political right and working in the private sector view defined contribution public pensions to be unfair as they perceive money for these pensions to be coming from the public purse.  However, they also refuse to recognize that singles receiving public pensions are supporting/subsidizing the public pension plans of married/coupled persons.  While married/coupled persons are receiving their public pensions, they have been given a boutique tax credit where they get to pension split (benefit added on top of benefit), thus paying less income tax.  Singles don’t get to do this and poor married/coupled persons do  not get the same benefits from pension splitting as the rich.  Yet another level of ‘selective’ democratic socialization is added to the mix when widowed persons (who now technically are single) get a supplementary public pension from their deceased spouses.

It is very difficult for political parties to eliminate the unfair pension splitting tax credit for fear of being voted out. A solution to making the playing field fair for singles versus married/coupled persons could be to give singles a fully refundable tax break during their pension years that is equivalent to amounts received in pension splitting by married/coupled persons.   For the widowed person’s public pension marital manna benefit, a solution to remedy this could be to give the widowed spouse whatever is left of the pension in a lump sum just like single deceased persons receive in their estates upon dying.  Again, it would be nice if financial think tanks would use some outside the box thinking to evaluate how fair the public pension system is to singles versus married/coupled persons and to analyze who really is getting the bigger slice of the pie.

Affordable housing prices out of reach for singles and poor families – Another ‘selective’ democratic socialist outcome is when affordable housing solutions are put in place, but the poor still pay more per square foot  for this housing.  The housing prices are out of whack when rich proportionally pay less per square foot (often the bigger the house the less they seem to pay per square foot), but ‘ever’ singles, early divorced persons and poor families pay more.  As a result, they also pay more in housing and education taxes, real estate fees and mortgage interest charges than the rich since these are based on price and not the square footage of the housing.

What better evidence is there of this than the case where a single person from San Francisco created a  ‘pod’ in the living room of an apartment so he could have a private place to sleep instead of the couch (singles-deserve-affordable-housing). Another is ‘free rent for sex’ advertisements resulting from the out of control Vancouver housing market (pressreader.)

Then there is the insanity of the charmed lives of the rich building luxurious playhouses for their children (pressreader).  These playhouses range from $7,000 to $100,000 and may include electricity, fireplaces and cabinets.  The sleeping pod of the San Francisco single man could probably be the size of the doghouse for the pets of the children owning these playhouses.

‘Selective’ democratic socialism where families get social benefits and singles are excluded – Many government and business financial solutions and social programs appear to include only families with singles being excluded.  One example is Habitat for Humanity who build houses for families only, not singles.

‘Selective’ democratic socialism above all means FAMILIES RULE – Government and politicians in their discussions talk mainly about family, family, family and the middle class instead of talking about ‘families and individuals’.  Singles are rarely included in the discussions.  ‘Selective’ democratic socialism by definition is exclusionary and selects families to receive benefits with singles rarely being included equally in the benefits.

CONCLUSION

These are just a few examples of ‘selective’ democratic socialism.  How positive or negative democratic socialism has been is in the eye of the beholder.  However, it is very hard to say that there have been more negatives than  positives when one looks at the list of all the accomplishments of union rights and democratic socialism.

Now, if only ‘ever’ singles, early divorced singles and poor families were included equally to other members in society in democratic social formulas, the world would be an even better place.

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

 

FEE SCHEDULES WHERE FAMILIES PAY MUCH LESS AND FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SINGLES

Posted on by
Reply

FEE SCHEDULES WHERE FAMILIES PAY MUCH LESS AND FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATE AGAINST SINGLES

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

This post is a reproduction of an article that was put together in 2009.  Even though the examples are several years old, nothing has changed where singles are consistently forced to pay more than families.  Many more examples can be found to replace these examples.

EXAMPLE A:

Fee Schedule

  • Standard Plan: Individual $65 Family $85
    Premium Plan: Individual $100 Family $130
    (Family is defined as two or more people and includes all members of a household)

Does this look like a fair plan?  The following information shows that this fee schedule is for a patient registration form from a local family doctor.  The fee schedule was put into place to cover uninsured services not covered by the provincial medical plan..  The uninsured services included:

  • telephone consultations
  • prescription renewals over the phone
  • completion of insurance forms, sick notes
  • medical supplies,
  • completion of school/camp forms, daycare notes
  • faxing/photocopying and transfer of medical records
  • pre-employment certificate of fitness
  • driver’s medical and physical examination form
  • citizen and immigration report
  • disability tax credit form
  • travel cancellation form
  • referral form for chiropractor and physiotherapy
  • referral note chiropody and massage
  • wart removal

The pay for service fee for any of these items ranged from low of $20.00 to high of $125.00.  The Standard Plan fee covered partial services of sick note, faxing and photocopying of medical records, back to work note, pre-employment certificate of fitness, referral  note for chiropractor and physiotherapy and referral  note for chiropody and massage.  The Premium fee covered all listed services.

THIS FEE SCHEDULE WAS RECOMMENDED BY THE PROVINCIAL MEDICAL ASSOCIATION

  • QUESTION: Why are singles paying more than families in adult to adult person comparison? (note:  assumption being made is that kids are FREE)
  • QUESTION: Who will be using more services such as school/camp forms, daycare notes, sick notes (by virtue of fact there are more members who will be using these forms in a family?  ANSWER:  Families will be using more of these services, so why are singles paying more in proportion than families?
  • QUESTION: Who will be using more of all of the services listed?  ANSWER:  Families will be using more of the services since there are more members in the family unit. So, why are singles paying more in proportion adult to adult in the family unit?
  • QUESTION: Why are couples without kids and alternative lifestyle couples without kids (included under family category, not single category) allowed to benefit (pay less) over singles?  They usually have two incomes, while singles only have one income.

SUGGESTION FOR A FEE SCHEDULE THAT PROMOTES EQUALITY AMONG ALL MEMBERS OF SOCIETY – form a plan that bases the fee on number of adults (kids would be free).

  • Individual $65 – change to $50 for one adult (singles are one unit, only have one income)
  • Family $100 – leave as $100.  (This would ensure each adult in whatever family unit – husband/wife with kids and two incomes, husband/wife with no kids and usually two incomes, alternative lifestyle couples with/without kids and usually two incomes – would all be paying an equal amount per adult.  All kids would be FREE. Singles would not be subsidizing families.
  • Single Parent $50 – add new category (EVEN SINGLE PARENTS WITH KIDS ARE SUBSIDIZING FAMILIES WITH/WITHOUT KIDS AND ALTERNATIVE LIFESTYLE COUPLES WITH/WITHOUT KIDS.  Charging for the adult only would ensure that single parents who usually only have one income would not be subsidizing members of any type of family unit.  SINGLE PARENTS WITH KIDS AND ONE  INCOME SHOULD NOT BE PLACED IN SAME CATEGORY AS FAMILY UNITS WITH MORE THAN ONE INCOME!

EXAMPLE B:

Local family sports center fee for yearly membership fee is :

  • Family – $500 per year
  • Single – $300 per year

Once again singles/single parents with kids and one income are subsidizing all types of family units as described above who usually have two incomes.

A more appropriate schedule would be to charge per adult:

  • Family – $500 per year
  • Individual – $250 per year
  • Single parent with kids – $250 per year

EXAMPLE C:

Local library fee schedule for yearly membership is:

  • Family – $20
  • Adults (18+) – $15

A more appropriate schedule would be:

  • Family – $20
  • Individual – $10
  • Single parent with kids $10

Many more examples can be given where singles/single parents with children are at a disadvantage compared to families.  (I.e., weekly Superstore coupon worth $25 is given when $250 is spent.  How can a single/single parent with kids even begin to spend $250 each week on one income?)

Above examples (just a few!! Out of many) show how the rich keep getting richer and how lower and middle income families benefit the most while individuals/single parents with kids and single incomes are the financial losers!!

The above recalculation of fee schedules did not take rocket science.  It appears government and decision makers won’t or can’t use financial intelligence and simple mathematical statistical formulas to promote the financial rights and privileges for equality of all citizens regardless of marital status.

The irony of this recalculation is that the fee schedules based on adults  may bring in slightly less revenue, and in some cases would even bring in more revenue while promoting financial equality.

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

 

REAL FINANCIAL LIVES OF SINGLES

Posted on by
2

REAL FINANCIAL LIVES OF SINGLES

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

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

CASE STUDIES

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

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

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

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

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

financial case profiles

ANALYSIS

  • Frugal financial lifestyle – Many singles are frugal because they have to be (Tanis).  Word ‘frugal’ used by financial planners respectfully describes financial distress of singles.  Why not call it was it is, a  poor financial quality of life?
  • Good incomes, but have difficulties living on them regardless if renting or paying  a mortgage– Some singles in these cases are making around $80,000 before tax income which is far above average before tax incomes of many singles and families in Canada.  The MoneySense 2015 All Canadian Wealth Test (wealth-test-2015-charts) (based on 2011 Statistics Canada data) shows that the top 20% quintile of unattached individuals have incomes over $55,499.  Unattached individuals in the middle 20% quintile have incomes from $23,357 to $36,859 and are considered to be middle class.  But are they able to live a middle class or wealthy lifestyle with these incomes?  If singles are having a hard time living on $50,000 plus incomes and are unable to max out their TFSA and RRSP accounts, there is something very wrong with financial systems for singles in this country (including lower income singles). Married/coupled people are quite often able to buy additional properties like rental and vacation properties, but then have to sell them (Case 1 – Tanis) when they become single because they can’t afford them.
  • Good incomes, but it doesn’t matter how much more singles make they still gain very little from increased income.  With every $20,000 increase in income they are lucky to get maybe extra $500 a month or $6,000 a year.  This is 30% gain in disposable income to 70% loss in deductions.  If Georges gets a higher paying job, he will likely be in a higher tax bracket. (added April 27, 2016)
  • Financial planners say it is not possible for singles to have a mortgage and save at the same time, can only do one or other.  They also tell single to get better paying jobs (but Case 4 – Georges already has a very good paying job at $81,000). – When singles are already working at very good salaried and management jobs earning $60,000 to $80,000, these are not $15 per hour jobs but $30 to $40 per hour jobs.  It is also bizarre when financial planners state these high paid singles are not able both to save for a house and save for retirement and should get better paying jobs ( Case 4 – Georges).  What does this mean, singles are only able to rent and cannot have mortgages except with $100,000 plus income jobs?  Another example is MoneySense April, 2016 “Budget Basics” (moneysense) – Lindsay is 29 year old engineering consultant from British Columbia who earns $71,000.  She owns an affordable $150,000 condo (housing costs are just 30% of her income which is nearly unheard of in British Columbia) and has $46,000 in RRSP and TFSA savings (saves 20% of her salary at $400 to her TFSA and $220 to her RRSP- RRSP is matched by her employer).   She wants to save for a bigger condo so she can have a dog and a garden.  The problem, though, is her expenses are surpassing her income.  She has $11,000 line of credit and $15,000 car loan.  The suggested financial action plan is to rethink her budget and to track her true expenses, subtract them from her net income and then reallocate what is left to savings.  She is in good financial shape, but she is trying to accomplish too many things at once (so stated in article).  In other words, it is very difficult for singles to have a mortgage and save at the same time even with good salaries.
  • What expenses are missing from budgets for most singles (can’t afford)? 
  • Dental, medical, medication
  • House maintenance
  • Extra monies for savings/emergencies
  • Restaurants/vacation/entertainment
  • Computer and repair, paper, ink
  • Replacement of vehicle
  • Other fees and expenses like library/recreation/fitness/magazines, books, etc.
  • Car license, registration, motor association fees
  • Professional association fees which can be very expensive depending on profession
  • Public Service single employees during employment or retirement are not as rich as everyone thinks – Singles with public service jobs (you know those people who make so much more than private sector employees and have outrageous pensions) often don’t have any more take home pay than private sector employees.  The public pension benefits must come from contributions during their working years leaving them financially stretched during their working years (this is not a bad thing as this is income being directed to savings).  Pensions on retirement are taxed at same rate as married persons and pension splitting is not available for singles.  Survivors pensions paid to widowers are subsidized by contributions of single employees.  Many singles with or without company pensions don’t have any more income in retirement than they had during employment.  If they are paying rent or mortgage they often are as poor during retirement and have no extra money for emergencies, replacement of vehicles and medical expenses.  (They may have a better quality of life during retirement if they own their own home and are not paying rent.  In these cases the only deductions public service individuals have any control over is the personal RRSP contribution).  Based on 15 year service as public service employee and rough calculation of retirement, take home income at age 65 is may be about $3,400 a month with rent or mortgage possibly not paid in full; therefore, these persons will have to draw from savings to pay expenses or work past the age of 65.
  • Unused RRSP and TFSA contributions – Most singles, unless they are wealthy, will have multiple unused room in RRSP and TFSA savings plans because of inability to max out contributions.
  • Married/coupled persons (many, not all) have unrealistic sense of entitlement and want it to continue throughout their lives from time of marriage to date of death – Case 5 – (business.financialpost) Philip wants to keep as much of his $1million net worth for sons’ inheritances, but doesn’t want OAS clawback on his income and taxable dividends.  Some married/coupled people with huge financial assets don’t want to give anything up (David 71 and Celeste 63, August 8, 2015, Financial Post Personal Finance Evaluation, “Couple fears shift to pension income”) (business.financialpost).  If they have problems during retirement, how about selling their $355,000 USA condo and winter at home in Canada?  Herb and Isabel at age 37 have so much wealth, $1.8 million, they can take two year out of country vacation and retire early and wealthy even though they have two children (Herb and Isabel, August 22, 2015, Financial Post Personal Finance Evaluation, “Vacation, Retirement hinge on real estate” business.financialpost).
  • Marital status or state of being married does not mean married people are any better at managing their financial affairs than singles (David and Celeste-need financial planning as disinterested investors with $ 1.9 million net worth, and Patricia 53, August 29, 2015, Calgary Herald, Financial Post Personal Finance Evaluation, “Debt clouds dreams of retirement at 60” who has monthly after tax income of $15,000) (pressreader).
  • Many married/coupled persons can retire before age 65, while most singles know they can’t retire until age 65 or beyond (Case 3 – Doris)
  • Shouldn’t financial systems be well planned to ensure all citizens (singles and young people) can live decent respectful financial lives without help from their parents and/or inheritances and without marital manna benefits?

CONCLUSION

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

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

RENTAL OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING – MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT ON SINGLES

Posted on by
2

RENTAL OR AFFORDABLE HOUSING – MISCONCEPTIONS ABOUT PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT ON SINGLES

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

A past post (to-rent-or-own) on this blog discussed rental versus affordable housing for singles.  The final conclusion of this post was that it is more difficult to do either rental or home purchases for singles than it is for married/coupled persons.

Financial management persons will say that it is much cheaper to rent than to own and that one should probably rent if there are financial constraints.  The advice is good from a financial point of view; however, the impact of this advice does not take into account the psychological well-being of singles.

Rental housing often means that singles have to choose second best to married/coupled persons and families.  Financial constraints often means rental properties singles have to choose from will be located in noisy, high traffic areas with no views except a retail space or another apartment across the way.  As well, there may often be a lot of noise between units.  There may not always be a washer and dryer within the apartment.  This means renters may have to  go down the hall, down several floors or even outside the building to laundry facilities.  Coin-operated laundry within or outside the building are very expensive and inconvenient.

Rental  housing for singles often means small apartments with small or no balconies. Meanwhile, the average size house in Canada is approximately 1900 square feet  and growing and it seems buyers’ expectations are very high.  They want for starters granite countertops, gourmet kitchens, a bedroom for each child, more than one bathroom, a playroom for the kids, a media room for the family and a large patio and yard for the barbecue as well as a basement and a garage in a choice location.  As has been explained in a past post, families buying these houses will often pay less per square foot than singles will for their smaller housing purchases.  In addition to the physical aspects, families will probably get much more for their house in psychological  satisfaction and well-being than singles will with their small spaces.

Rental in senior year for singles and the poor often means very little is left for a good financial quality of life after the rent has been paid.

Families and financial planners need to look on the other side of fence as to how all this impacts singles.  Singles need pleasant surroundings, the ability to make choices in what appeals to them, and affordable housing, just like married/coupled persons and families. Somehow, the perception by society is that because singles are single, they need and deserve less than married/coupled persons and families for housing.

Rather than telling singles and the poor that rental is the only option for them, upside-down financing for housing where families and those with the ability to pay get more and pay less for housing (upside-down-affordable-housing) needs to change.

Affordable housing for singles, poor families and the homeless is becoming more and more difficult to achieve in many countries including Canada.  Outside the box thinking where singles are included in housing solutions, not just families, needs to be addressed for the psychological well-being of all persons regardless of marital status and income levels.

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

CANADIAN SNOWBIRDS LIKELY RICH CANADIAN FAMILIES FINANCIALLY DISADVANTAGING SINGLES AND THE POOR

Posted on by
2

CANADIAN SNOWBIRDS LIKELY RICH CANADIAN FAMILIES FINANCIALLY DISADVANTAGING SINGLES AND THE POOR

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

Who are the Canadian Snowbirds (Canadians who spend winter outside of Canada)? They are Canadians who spend up to approximately 182 days or six months out of Canada and in the United States each year usually during the winter season.

A new system is being implemented whereby Canadian snowbirds will be able to be tracked more easily for financial fraud during their snowbird stays.  Some snowbirds think they should be able to stay longer than six months in the USA.

According to MoneySense, ‘Follow the Flock South, October 8, 2013 moneysense more than one million Canadians age 55 and up lead lifestyle of snowbirds.

‘Avoiding the Snowbirds’ Trap’ thestar article states:

  • ‘that the study by the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research revealed that Florida’s five-million population over 55 swelled by more than a million people every winter, and 82 per cent of these snowbirds came from Canada.  The study stated that not only are the number of snowbirds continuing to increase, encouraged by the dollar and cheaper real estate, they are getting younger as baby-boomers retire.
  • There are trade-offs that have to be made.  The winter snowbirds have a large impact on life in Florida.  One of the complicating issues is that those people are only in the state for part of the year.
  • State and county governments responsible for roads and transportation are often caught in a quandary of whether or not to improve infrastructure to cope with the winter traffic jams, or plan around the six summer months when the snowbirds have left and roads, public transit, even retail malls are relatively deserted.  One key finding of the study was that 81 per cent or 500,000 snowbirds spending their winters in Florida actually own their secondary home in the sunshine state.
  • Canadians are the biggest foreign purchasers of U.S. residential real estate and own an estimated $50 billion worth in Florida alone.
  • There also has been talk about proposed USA legislation creating a Retirees Visa, increasing the current six-month limit on a winter stay for snowbirds to eight months.’

Canadians snowbirds make their presence felt:  spending $5 billion in 2012, just in the big-four sunshine states of Florida, Arizona, Texas and California alone according to the Canadian Snowbird Association. snowbirds

The following article give some interesting facts of Canadian real estate purchases in the USA:  ‘2015 Profile of Home Buying – Activity of International Clients (Residential) in USA-April/14 to Mar/15′ realtor.org

  • In April, 2014 to March, 2015 homes estimated to be sold to foreign buyers were approximately 209,000 with total sales estimated to be $104 billion.
  • Fourteen per cent were from Canada (29,260 sales) with sales of $11.2 billion ($382,775 per sale).  About 47% of Canadian buyers bought for vacation properties and 12% for vacation and rental.  Types of housing purchased include 46% detached homes, 35% condos, and 12% townhomes.  Remaining 7% were commercial, land and other purchases.  On average Canadian buyers purchased properties valued at $380,000 and about 73% were purchased on an all-cash basis.
  • Dollar value of Canadian sales for 2009 $8.9 billion, 2010 $17.1 billion, 2011 $13.0 billion, 2012 $15.9 billion, 2013 $11.8 billion, 2014 $13.8 billion.
  • Fifty per cent of sales were in the four states of Florida, California, Texas and Arizona.
  • Foreign buyers tended to be upscale buyers (all buyers, not just Canadian) who paid overall USA average house price of $499,600 compared to average USA house price of about $255,600.
  • An average of 8% of USA residents were interested in buying in Canada in 2015.

SO WHO CAN AFFORD TO BUY SECOND PROPERTIES OUTSIDE OF CANADA AND RESIDE THERE FOR SIX MONTHS OF THE YEAR?

According to Statistics Canada there were approximately 5 million seniors age 65 and over in 2011.  About 47% are in family unit of two or more persons, the rest are singles and widowers.

One could probably estimate that most of the Canadian snowbirds are families as singles are less likely to be able to purchase a second home and stay in the USA for six months of the year. (See MoneySense All-Canadian Wealth Test below).   Forty-seven per cent of the 5 million Canadian seniors equals about 2,350,000 family units.  If 80% or 500,000 Canadians own second homes in Florida alone, that is a lot of money flowing out of Canada to the USA (another 20% of Floridian snowbirds do not own second homes in Florida).

WHERE IS ALL THE WEALTH GOING?

While wealthy Canadians are able to buy second homes and spend six month of the year outside the country, singles, poor families and the poor are left behind to support the country with money they don’t have.

One could say that if Canadian governments placed financial values for the country as one of their priorities, they would certainly not give future approval for outside the country stays over six months and they would maybe even shorten the stay to three or four months (added Arpil 26, 2016).

Yes, snowbirds still pay annual income taxes and property taxes, but  their houses are likely sitting empty for half the year.  Yes, they are not taking jobs away from USA citizens, but they also are taking their money away from Canada and spending it in the USA. Comments listed at the end of this post shows how entitled these rich snowbirds feel with no regard to what is happening financially to the country of which they are citizens.  (The last comment is one of better ones).

‘Money Sense “All Canadian Wealth Test’ 2009’ moneysense – Quote:  While incomes are far from equal, wealth is even more unbalanced. The richest 20% of Canadian households control about 69% of the wealth in Canada. The next quintile down possesses a further 20% of the net worth. Not much is left over for other people. The bottom 60% of households control only 11% of Canada’s wealth. In fact, the bottom fifth of the population possess no wealth and actually owe a few thousand dollars more than they own.

Families of Two or more Income 2015 MoneySense All Canadian Wealth Test (based on 2011 data) moneysense.2015

Upper-middle 20% quintile      $88,075 to $125,009

Highest 20% quintile                $125,010 and up

Families of Two or More Wealth 2015 MoneySense All Canadian Wealth Test (based on 2011 data)

Upper-middle 20% quintile       $589,687 to $1,139,488

Highest 20% quintile                 $1,139,489 and up

Above amounts are misleading as they include single parents with children.  If these persons are removed from the totals, net worth is probably much higher.

The Upper-middle 20% quintile of unattached individuals had a net worth of $128,068 to $455,876 and the Highest 20% quintile $455,877 and over.  (Does this include widowers? If it does, they are more likely to have greater net worth than ‘ever’-never married, no kids singles or early in life divorced/separated singles.)

The number of census families in Canada—married couples, common-law couples and lone-parent families equalled about 9.4 million families in 2011.

According to Statistics Canada there were approximately 4,945,055 seniors aged 65 and over in Canada in 2011.

Senior families of two or more persons comprise about 44% of the population, singles 13% and widowers 43%.

Opinion comments submitted by readers in response to the articles

From “Crooked Canadian Snowbirds risk losing their benefits under new security program” bnn.ca/News

-’Crooked Canadian Snowbirds??? Gimme a break.. The snowbirds you are talking about worked hard, saved and now are just wanting to enjoy some winters away from the cold and wet before the rising cost of health insurance keeps them hostage in Canada.  They are not taking any jobs from Americans and are not impairing the Canadian economy in anyway; cut them slack and stop making them out as criminals.

 

-By leaving the country for more than six months, you are spending your money elsewhere and not on the Canadian economy.  You will also lose health benefits such as the provincial health care that is free to Canadian citizens.  If you leave the country for more than six months, you should not be able to retain these benefits.  These are all costly benefits paid into and by taxpayers that should not be taken advantage of by anyone…Winter is only for six months.  I am one of those who runs away from winters, and that is more than enough time!!!’

From “Canadian Snowbirds Risk Losing Benefits under New Exit-Tracking System” snowbirds

-Snowbirds that spend six months in warmer countries pay for all year health care fees (British Columbia), income tax, property tax, but only use it for six months.  The government should be happy with it.  Nobody is exploiting the system.  Seniors have worked all their lives to pay for what the younger generation has now, so now it is time for the younger generation to pay for the next one and leave seniors alone.  They did their jobs and paid their dues.

 

-I used to work for (government) investigations and at that time we were uncovering $10 of fraud for every $1 spent on detecting it.  So you would have expected that the Government would hire more investigators until the ratio became 1-1.  However, it is difficult to convince voters that the government can save money by hiring more public servants.

 

-Provided they also go after rich tax cheats and their offshore tax havens, I’m fine with this.  It’s a myth that if you pay into a program, you’re automatically entitled to a benefit.  You’re only entitled to the benefit if you meet the criteria…in this case, the criteria is that you physically be in Canada for a certain portion of every year.  The programs are most often income supplements…not ‘retire in the sun’ strategies.  To think otherwise is the ultimate ‘entitlement mentality’.

 

-I will be judged for smamming my parents here, but this fits them to a tee.  Many years ago retired…early.  Moved from northern community to a border community.  Shop over the border every single day for everything.  They go to Florida 6 months a year.  Then come home and complain about Canada for the other 6 months.  We discussed (if one could call it) this once.  My parents were once proud Canadians.  Started with little, had children, used all the services available to them, for us.  As soon as they got what they needed.  BOOM.  Repubs overnight.  ‘Why should I pay for health care taxes for someone else?  We are never here’. Reminding them that they were part of the systems they used, while they were a young family fell on deaf ears. Children are not born selfish and greedy.  They are taught these terrible qualities.  I do agree we should be going offshore hunting for tax evaders, but this is a serious issue as well.  I remember suggesting to them ‘Why don’t you just move down there full time’?  Verbatim – ‘We will lose all our pension and health’.  Fools!’

End of comments.

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