OAS CLAWBACK OUTRAGEOUSLY BENEFICIAL TO UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS MARRIED OR COUPLED SENIORS, BUT FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATORY TO SINGLES AND POOR

Posted on August 29, 2016 by ffswpadmin

OAS CLAWBACK OUTRAGEOUSLY BENEFICIAL TO UPPER MIDDLE-CLASS MARRIED OR COUPLED SENIORS, BUT FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATORY TO SINGLES AND POOR

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

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

Occasionally, there are topics that give one pause resulting in questioning as to the efficacy of the formulation behind the topic. The OAS Clawback (proper name is OAS Recovery tax as per Canada Revenue Agency) and the financial discriminatory properties behind the program is one such topic. One way to resolve the questioning is to look at the topic in detail.

OAS is a federal social program designed to provide a very modest pension to low- and middle-income retirees. It is part of the universal government benefits for seniors (pillar 1) to ensure income security for senior Canadians. In 2016 the OAS maximum amount is $6,680 for a single person and $13,760 for a couple. OAS clawback which began around 2011 does very little to clawback the income of upper middle class persons, particularly married or coupled family units. The clawback of OAS benefits in 2016 starts with a net income per person of $72,809 (couple $145,618) and completely eliminates OAS with income of $118,055 (couple $236,110). The repayment calculation is based on the difference between personal income and the threshold amount for the year. The repayment of OAS is 15 percent of that amount. All OAS is clawed back if personal income is over $118,055.

According to Human Resource Development Canada, only about five percent of seniors receive reduced OAS pensions, and only two percent lose the entire amount. This program benefits wealthy couples and widowers the most. OAS clawback for couple only begins at net income of $145,618 ($72,809 per person) thus allowing them to receive full OAS of $13,760 as a couple. There are not many ever single seniors, early divorced in life seniors and single parent seniors who could hope to achieve a net income of $72,809; however, for wealthy widowers this may be easier to achieve and they are the ones who complain about clawback.

An example of OAS clawback is the following example:

The threshold for 2015 is $72,809. If your income in 2015 was $80,000, then your repayment would be 15 percent of the difference between $80,000 and $72,809:

$80,000 – $72,809 = $7,191

$7,191 x 0.15 = $1,078.65

You would have to repay $1,078.65 for the July 2016 – June 2017 period.

Many financial advisors will give strategies on how to avoid the clawback while benefitting married or coupled family units the most. This is just another example of financial marital manna benefits and manipulation of assets that within the legal limits of Canada Revenue Agency’s laws allows married or coupled person to increase their wealth (manipulation-of-assets). This also is just another example of the upside finances perpetuated in this country by politicians, government and businesses that benefit married or coupled persons the most (quality-of-life).

From a financial advisor comes this statement (claw-back): “I also want to put the impact of the claw back into perspective. Although no one likes to give up $6,600 in free money, it’s not like you were going to get to keep it all anyway. As the OAS is taxable, most people in the claw back zone would have paid back over 30% of it in taxes.

Secondly, some clients look at paying claw back as the cost of doing business; while they may not love it, they look at it as a price of their own financial success and as money they really don’t need anyway. Moreover, they might correctly see that in some cases combatting the claw back isn’t worth the effort. For example, although the rest of the article will focus on how dividends are often bad news for retirees trying to avoid the claw back, these same people might also be reluctant to modify their investments to produce other types of investment returns, especially if that means unnecessarily courting more investment risk or triggering a big capital gain in order to rebalance their portfolios”.

Limiting OAS Clawback

There are a few strategies you can implement to reduce clawback amounts (strategies):

Split your pension with your spouse. If your spouse has a lower income, you can transfer up to 50 percent to your spouse, which should reduce your overall income. This could also include a Registered Retirement Income Fund and annuity income.
Dip into your Registered Retirement Savings Plan before you turn 65. An RRSP is only a tax deferral, meaning that at some point, you’ll have to pay those taxes. Consider taking funds out before reaching the age of 65 so you do not lose the OAS.
Use your tax-free savings accounts to generate investment income, which is non-taxable and would not count towards your net income.
Interest on funds borrowed to earn investment income can be deducted and could reduce your net income.
Watch for capital gains. If you are planning a sale of an asset that could trigger large capital gains, consider selling it before you turn 65.

From another financial planner (minimizing-clawback): “At the end of the day, more people’s concern over OAS clawback will not be such a big deal simply because there are not a lot of people over the age of 65 making more than $72,809 of income. The people that do may have significant pensions or continue to work and earn and income over the age of 65. There will also be a group of people that trigger significant capital gains from the sale of second property or investments but the good news is they will only lose part or all of there OAS in the one year that the capital gains is realized and reported on the tax return. But if you happen to be one of the few that will get affected, make sure you plan ahead accordingly”.

CONCLUSION

The OAS clawback (implemented by Conservative party) is just another example of how politicians and government have ensured that senior upper middle class married or coupled family units with incomes between $72,809 to $118,055 net income per person will benefit more from the OAS government program. These same politicians and government agencies have financially discriminated against ever single seniors, early divorced in life seniors and single parent seniors by ensuring only five percent of seniors will receive reduced OAS pensions, and only two percent lose the entire amount. Note we have specifically stated upper middle class married or coupled family units because wealthy married and coupled family units have already been excluded from receiving OAS pension by virtue of the $$118,055 (couple $236,110) net income limit.

To add further insult, politicians and government have ensured that the upper middle class will receive benefit upon benefit upon benefit to reduce the effects of the OAS recovery tax program. The Liberal party (now ruling federal party) implemented a 1.5% reduction in income tax for incomes between $45,282 and $90,563. These are middle class incomes, not incomes of the poor. Pension splitting is another program that reduces the possibility of OAS clawback. As stated above, past governments have also ensured that marital manna benefits and ability to manipulate assets have been been given primarily to married or coupled family units all within legal limits of financial laws. All of these benefits perpetuate an upside-down financial system where the upper middle class and the wealthy are able to achieve greater wealth than ever single, early divorced in life and single parent seniors. In other words, the OAS Recovery Tax program (supposed to provide income security for poorer seniors) is a failed program which ensures greater wealth for the upper middle class and greater poverty for singles and the poor.

SOLUTION (added August 31, 2016)

Equivalence scales (scales) and net worth – how many times can it be said over and over again that wealthy and upper middle class married or coupled family units are increasing their wealth by government programs designed to give more to these family units? To correct this financial discrimination and upside finances for singles and the poor, equivalence scales and net worth need to be applied to these programs. Monies saved could then be redistributed to the poor regardless of marital status.

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

EQUIVALENCE SCALES IN RELATION TO COST OF LIVING

Posted on August 17, 2016 by ffswpadmin

EQUIVALENCE SCALES IN RELATION TO COST OF LIVING

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

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

Equivalence scales have 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 (updated March 29, 2017 – full StatsCan table available online):

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”.

Added- December 1, 2017

The following explanation for equivalence scales as applied to LIM (Low Income Measure) has been taken from statcan.gc.ca/nhs-enm/2011

“The equivalence scales are employed to account for the economies of scales in consumption for different family compositions and sizes. A family of two persons needs more income than a single-person family, but not twice as much to maintain the same standard of living. Consequently, if the single-person family needs one unit of income, the two-person family needs more than one but less than two units of income. The equivalence scale system under LIM assigns a one to a single-person family, 1.4 to a two-person family (two adults or one adult and one child under 16 years of age), 1.7 to a three-person family consisting of two adults and one child, etc…….

Table 1 contains the after-tax LIM thresholds for the year 2006. Using data from the Survey of Labour and Income Dynamics (SLID), the estimated median of adjusted after-tax family income is $30,358. Thus the standard LIM threshold is $30,358 ÷ 2 = $15,179. The LIM threshold for a single-person family is simply equal to the standard threshold since its equivalent size is unit. For a family of size 2, since its equivalence scale is 1.4, its LIM threshold would be $15,179 x 1.4 = $21,251…….

2.3 Adopting the squared-root equivalence scale

One of the key ingredients under the LIM methodology is to choose the equivalence scale. In essence, the equivalence scale measures how the consumption of an individual will have to change when her/his family status changes such that her/his level of well-being is maintained. For example, a woman lives alone and consumes a basket of goods and services for given prices and attains a certain level of utility. The problem in identifying the equivalence scale for her is to ask how much she would save if she were to live with somebody else, attaining the same utility level as before. Since a person cannot be living alone and together with somebody at the same time, it is generally impossible to identify the equivalence scale for each individual.

Nevertheless, income/resources pooling and sharing do occur within a family or household and economies of scale in joint consumption exist. For example, if two families, each of size two, were to decide to form a new family of size four, the new family would not need as many cars, stoves and refrigerators as when they were living separately to attain their previous levels of satisfaction. They may also be able to take advantage of bulk pricing and volume discounts. Thus, in practice, the equivalence scale is primarily employed to account for savings accrued in consumption expenditures for people who live together. But the problem is that there is no agreement about the degree and extent of the saving, and hence various equivalence scales have been proposed and employed.

The equivalence scales under LIM were chosen as a rough mid-point of several scales embodied in the various series of LICOs and administrative/legislative scales implied by the municipal budget guides and provincial social assistance levels. As Table 2 shows, they fall in between the Old Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) scales (also known as the Oxford scales) and scales derived by Poulin (1988) from Statistics Canada’s Income Satisfaction Surveys. These equivalence scales have been employed by Statistics Canada to produce the LIM thresholds since 1991, as well as those extended versions to earlier years. LIM’s equivalence scales are also employed by the MBM line.”

CONCLUSION

For those who doubt the validity of equivalence scales, the following link (pdf/CEPE_Echelles_equiv_en.) provides evidence that equivalence scales do work provided they are constantly tweaked for validity in recognition there is no perfect system and evaluation is required for changes over time.

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

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

Posted on August 17, 2016 by ffswpadmin

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

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

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

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

EXAMPLE #1

Affordable Housing (services)

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

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

EXAMPLE #2

Legal Aid Alberta (legalaid)

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

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

EXAMPLE #3

Family Tax Credits (tax-credits)

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

LESSONS LEARNED

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

HISTORY OF FAMILY TAX CREDITS OVER DECADES ARE FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATING TO SINGLES-Part 1 of 2

Posted on August 2, 2016 by ffswpadmin

HISTORY OF FAMILY TAX CREDITS OVER DECADES ARE FINANCIALLY DISCRIMINATING TO SINGLES-Part 1 of 2

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

This post was updated on August 3 and 9, 2016.

Child Benefits (also known as Baby Bonus) have been around for a long time. While this, in as of itself, may or may not have produced substantial financial discrimination for singles, it is all the additional marital manna benefits given to married or coupled with and without children family units over the years that have continually increased the financial discrimination of singles.

Some of most money-enhancing benefits beginning in 1945 to present date are outlined below.

The Family Allowance (currently called Canada Child Benefit) began in 1945 as Canada’s first universal welfare program. Benefits were awarded without reference to the family’s income or assets – based on the idea that all Canadian children are worthy of public support. Since the 1980s, however, such allowances have been increasingly targeted to low-and-middle-income families. The Child Benefits program has gone through different variations over the years. The amount is calculated each year based on family income and the number of children in the family under the age of 18. Supplements are also available for handicapped children. It is said that the incidence of child poverty in Canada is second highest among Western developed nations – second only to the USA. The Canada Child Benefit program is still based only on income, not assets and net worth.

The Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) was introduced in 1957 to encourage Canadians to provide for their own retirement. They are intended to encourage private savings for retirement and thus contribute to the earnings-replacement objective. Money placed in RRSP account,, as well as investment earnings on the money are tax-deferred until withdrawn on retirement or earlier. As well as RRSP account for individuals, there also can be a spousal RRSP which allows a higher earner, called a spousal contributor, to contributed to an RRSP in their spouse’s name (it is the spouse who is the account holder). A spousal RRSP is a means of splitting income in retirement and, therefore, possibly pay less tax.

Maternity and Parental Benefits began in 1971 and are a part of the Employment Insurance program. Parents must have contributed to EI program. The basic rate of these EI benefits is 55% of average insurable weekly earnings up to a maximum of yearly amount of $50,800. EI maternity benefits can be paid for a maximum of 15 weeks and EI parental benefits can be paid for a maximum of 35 weeks. Some companies offer ‘top-up’ programs with increased benefits in amount of pay and length of payment. (Added August 21, 2016)

Child Rearing Drop-Out Benefit (CDRO) began in 1983. This benefit allows parent to increase Canada Pension Plan (CPP) benefit if he/she stayed at home to take of children under the age of seven. The period of time parent stayed at home can be excluded from the calculation of the CPP benefit so that CPP benefit is increased. The CDRO can only be used for months when Family Allowance Payments were received or Canada Child Benefits are eligible and earnings were lower because work was either stopped or there were fewer worked hours. (Added August 21, 2016)

The Registered Education Savings Plan (RESP) began in 1998. From 1998 (the first year the program started) to 2006 inclusive the annual contribution limit was $4,000 and lifetime contribution limit $42,000 (including any contributions made prior to 1998). From 2007 to present there is no annual contribution limit and the lifetime contribution limit is $50,000 (including all contributions made prior to 1998). Based on the amount of the RESP contributions and income level, the government may additionally contribute up to $7,200 per child as well as other grants.

Since 2007, Canadian spouses or common-law partners have been allowed to split the pension income one of the spouse receives between the two spouses. This strategy allows the spouse who has the highest income to lower his tax payable by sharing up to 50 % of his pension income with his spouse.

The Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA) began in 2009. The amount of $5,000 new contribution room (from after-tax income) was allowed for each year from 2009 to 2012. For the years 2012 and onwards, the amount is $5,500 per person. The maximum amounts for an individual for years 2009 to 2012 is $20,000 and for a couple in a married or coupled family unit it is $40,000. From years 2013 to 2016, the maximum amounts for an individual are $22,000 and $44,000 for a married or coupled family unit. For years 2009 to 2016, the maximum allowable amounts for an individual total $42,000 and for a married or coupled family unit comprised of two adults $84,000 (all tax free).

OAS is a federal social program designed to provide a very modest pension to low- and middle-income retirees. In 2016 the OAS is $6,680 for single person and $13,760 for a couple. OAS clawback which began in 2011 does very little to clawback the income of wealthy persons. The clawback of OAS benefits in 2016 starts with a net income per person of $72,809 (couple $145,618) and completely eliminates OAS with income of $118,055 (couple $236,110). The repayment calculation is based on the difference between personal income and the threshold amount for the year. The repayment of OAS is 15 percent of that amount. All OAS is clawed back if personal income is over $118,055. According to Human Resource Development Canada, only about five percent of seniors receive reduced OAS pensions, and only two percent lose the entire amount. This program benefits wealthy couples and widowers the most. OAS clawback for couple only begins at net income of $145,618 thus allowing them to receive full OAS of $13,760 as a couple. There are not many ever single seniors and early divorced in life seniors who could hope to achieve a net income of $72,809; however, for wealthy widowers this may be easier to achieve and they are the ones who complain about clawback.

Starting in January 2016, tax changes decreased income taxes (federal) for those making between $45,282 and $90,563 from 22 per cent to 20.5 per cent. It also increased taxes on those making above $200,000 from 29 per cent to 33 per cent. The majority of ever singles and early divorced persons do not have incomes over $45,282 (statcan). While middle class families with children get less of the Canada Child Benefits because they are based on income, this is offset with reduced income taxes. So, who financially loses out yet again?-answer, singles. (This paragraph was added on August 9, 2016).

Income splitting would have allowed couples with children younger than 18 to transfer up to $50,000 in income from the higher earner to the lower earner for tax purposes, for a benefit that will be capped at $2,000. It was to start with the 2014 tax year, but was eliminated by the Liberal government.

Other possible benefits on the federal level are too numerous to mention. Married or coupled with children family units may also receive other top up benefits on the provincial level.

From the time a married or coupled with children family unit begins at marriage until death of one of the spouses, it is possible they will receive shower, wedding and baby gifts, maternity/paternity leaves, child benefits, TFSA benefits times two, RRSP benefits times two, reduced taxes, pension-splitting, and possible survivor pension benefits. There also are probably a great number of years where they never pay full taxes while increasing their wealth. Singles are not able to achieve these same level of benefits and tax relief.

SOLUTION

To bring some sort of sanity to all the benefits upon benefits upon benefits that married or coupled family units receive, for starters it would be prudent for politicians and government to apply square root equivalence scales (finances) to any and all benefits, past and future. An example when implementing benefits would be to apply a square root equivalence value of 1.0 for a single person family unit and a value of 1.4 for a married or coupled without children family unit.

CONCLUSION

As shown above benefits have been given to married or coupled persons with children family units for seventy five years and have not been as kind to singles. The majority of the benefits have been implemented by the Federal Conservative party in the last decade and continue to be perpetuated by the Liberal party. Ever singles and early divorced singles without children have not received the same level of benefits (single parents with children do receive some benefits, but these still are not at the same level as married or coupled family units, for example, pension splitting and spousal RRSPs). There is no issue with providing support to poor and low income family units with children. However, singles should take great issue with benefits being given to family units with children without taking into consideration income as well as net worth and assets so that they can increase their wealth from these benefits. Also, there should be great issue with poor and low income singles not receiving same level of assistance.

As stated in a previous post (decades), how many more decades is it going to take before singles are equally included in financial formulas as married or coupled family units? When is the financial discrimination of singles going to end? This is not just a Canadian problem, but a worldwide problem. Singles need to speak out about financial discrimination.

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

SINGLES NEED TO LEARN HOW TO ARTICULATE FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES

Posted on July 28, 2016 by ffswpadmin

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 June 12, 2016 by ffswpadmin

POLITICIAN’S RESPONSE LETTER DOES NOT UNDERSTAND SINGLES’ FINANCES

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

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

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

A portion of the letter is reproduced as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Table for two equivalence scales:

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

Posted on June 2, 2016 by ffswpadmin

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:

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.

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.

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.

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.

SENIOR SINGLES PAY MORE – Part 4 of 4

Posted on December 22, 2015 by ffswpadmin

RESPONSE TO LETTERS ON UNFAIR SINGLE SENIORS TAXATION

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 was originally published in a local newspaper on September 9, 2015. Since there is a space limit for number of words that can be submitted to newspapers, additional comments that do not appear in the original published article have been added here in italics). This blog post was updated on December 1, 2017 replacing 60-70% of living costs to 1.4 equivalence scale (equivalence-scales) for singles.

Here we go again. Opinion letters from last two weeks show married/coupled people cannot put themselves into singles’ financial shoes without dumbing down singles’ opinions and sticking singles’ finances into family financial boxes. Unfortunately, singles finances don’t work that way. Following is a response to both letters.

Re TFSAs (Tax Free Savings Accounts), caps must be set on TFSA amounts. Otherwise, wealth spread between married/coupled people and singles and low income people will exponentially widen with less money collected in tax systems, and ability to pay for public programs such as education disappearing. Most singles, single parent and low income families are unable to max out TFSAs at lower limit, let alone higher limit (and RRSPs-Registered Retirement Savings Plans).

Re income splitting benefits, multiple discussions show wealthy families benefit more than other families. Present format implies households with singles, single parents (don’t get to stay home to raise kids) and parents with equal incomes don’t deserve same financial equality. Re pension splitting married/coupled people already get two of everything including pensions.

You say bizarre conclusions have been reached. Let’s talk bizarre. 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 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 benefits 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 also 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.’

Why should married/coupled people get discriminatory marital status benefits where unused credits like Age Credits benefits can be transferred to spouse?

Conservatives are so proud they have initiated targeted tax relief benefit where single senior can now earn $20,360 and senior couple $40,720 before paying federal income tax. Using simple math, tax relief for single seniors is only $1,697 per month, for senior couples $3,393 per month. Rent or mortgage payment of $1,000 per month is barely covered for singles, but is amply covered for senior couple.

BMO Retirement Institute Report “Retirement for One-By Chance or Design” 2009 .bmo.com and other reports state present tax systems give huge advantages to married/coupled people with singles never married or divorced at some point throughout their entire working career usually subsidizing married/coupled people.

Russell Investments “Spending Patterns in Retirement”, February 2010, russell.com states:

‘government transfers, such as CPP and OAS are generally not sufficient to cover Essentials of Retirement. Problem is magnified for single retirees. For example, in $35,000-$60,000 income category, couples spend only about 12% more than singles on essentials, yet receive about 80% more in government transfers’.

Eighty per cent more in transfers, why can’t married/coupled people grasp this fact? Why can’t families understand that ‘ever’ singles have not used medical services for baby delivery, maternal/paternal paid LOA’s from work and many have not used any EI benefits? Instead ‘ever’ singles are financially supporting and subsidizing families.

Reader #2 letter also talks about how expensive it is to raise a disabled child. It is no different living as a disabled adult. The Assured Income for the Severely Handicapped (AISH program in Alberta) allows only $1,588 a month for an unemployed disabled person of single status.

True living costs for singles must be recognized. Using equivalence scales it is a well-established fact that living costs for singles are 1.4 to that of a couple. If married persons own their homes outright, the cost of living is even less to that of singles who rent or have a mortgage. If programs such as pension splitting and survivor benefits continue for married/coupled and widowed seniors, then at same time, singles and not widowed single seniors should get 1.4 equivalent scale enhancements through GIS and OAS relative to married/coupled persons’ baselines. Equivalence scale of 1.4 for couples to that of singles’ federal tax relief of $20,360 income should equal $28,504 ($2,375 per month) not $40,720 for couples. Why is that too much to ask?

Politicians and most families are financially illiterate in financial affairs of singles. The Conservative political parties (provincial and federal) are particularly guilty of this as many marital status benefits have been implemented under their watch.

Further advice from reader letters state singles can live with someone else when they are already living in studio, one bedroom apartments, and basement suites. Senior singles who have lived productive lives while contributing to their country want and deserve their own privacy and bathroom. Many senior assisted living dwellings have in recent years built more spaces for singles who with one income pay more for that space than married/coupled persons. Just how long should shared arrangements go on for (entire lives?) instead of correcting underlying financial issues?

Following examples show financial dignity and respect for singles (and low income families). Attainable Housing (attainyourhome), Calgary, allows maximum household income of $90,000 for single and dual/parent families with dependent children living in the home and maximum household income of $80,000 for singles and couples with no dependent children living in the home. Living Wage for Guelph and Wellington allows singles dignity of one bedroom and living wage income that is 44% of a family of 4 income and 62% of a family of two (parent and child).

Assumptions that middle class singles can live on average after tax income of $27,212 is bizarre. Suggestion of $200 food budget and $110 transportation per month for singles is unrealistic. At present gas prices, $150 per month is barely adequate for 30-40 minute drive to and from work. For comparison, Living Wage for Guelph and Wellington (livingwagecanada) (2013 living wage of $15.95 per hour), a bare bones program to get low income and working poor families and singles off the street, allows a calculated living wage income for single person of $25,099 with no vehicle, food $279, transit and taxi $221 (includes one meal eating out per month). (It should be noted that men require more calories; therefore, their budget for food will be higher. Also in 2015, the living wage for Guelph and Wellington has been set at $16.50 per hour).

Reader #2 letter seems to include expenses such as utilities, insurance, and phone bill in family expenses, but excludes them from the single person expenses. Reader #2 seems to think that $500.00 after food, transportation, clothing and rent expenses per month is ample money to cover miscellaneous expenses such as laundry, recreation and eating out plus the non-mentioned utilities, insurance and phone bill. The reader #2 letter then goes on to say: ‘And, if a single person cuts out some of the recreational activities and eating out, could break even at the lower end.’ Once again there is that assumption that singles spend too much on recreation and eating out. And, of course, there is no mention of singles having to save for emergencies or retirement.

While singles are living in their small spaces (average size of new studio, one bed and one bed/den new condo combined being built in Toronto is 697 sq. feet), majority of Canadian married/coupled people families are living in average 1950 sq. foot houses (2010) with large gourmet kitchens, multiple bathrooms, bedrooms for each child and guests, basement, garage, yard, and nice patio with barbecue, etc.

Families don’t take their own advice which they dish out to singles. Senior couples or widowed don’t want to give up their big houses, but ask for reduced house taxes and senior’s school property tax assistance programs (Calgary Herald, “Not Now” letter to the editor, August 26, 2015). If you can’t pay your house taxes, how about moving to smaller place or go live with someone (tit for tat)? If families with kids don’t pay school property taxes as seniors, then homeowners who have never had kids should not have to pay school taxes throughout their entire lives.

Financial discrimination of singles is accepted in mainstream and is, indeed, celebrated. Article like “Marrying for money pays off” (researchnews) implies married/coupled persons and families are more financially responsible.

In Calgary Herald article, August 7, 2012, Financial Post “Ten Events in Personal Financial Decathlon Success” (personal-financial-decathlon), the Family Status step says:

‘From a financial perspective, best scenario is a marriage for life. It provide stability for planning, full opportunities for tax planning and income splitting and ideally for sharing responsibilities that can enhance each other’s goals and careers. One or two divorces can cause significant financial damage. Being single also minimizes some of the tax and pension advantages that couples benefit from’.

How nice!

There is no need for another political party as stated in Reader #1 letter. In present political system, singles are losing financial ground. Words ‘individuals’ or ‘singles’ rarely come to the financial lips of politicians, families or media. What is needed is to bring financial issues of singles to same financial table as families and to make positive changes for both parties to financial formulas. Singles are not asking for more financial benefits than families, but equivalency to family benefits as applicable at rate of 1.4 to that of household comprised of two persons. They deserve this as citizens of this country.

So when singles are no longer able to live with financial dignity thus creating financial singles ghettos (financial bankruptcy because they are not included in financial formulas), just what will society do? Apparently, they are looking for people to go to Mars. Singles could always be involuntarily sent there. Out of sight, out of mind.

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