Category Archives: financial fairness

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

Posted on by
Reply

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

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

SOURCES OF INFORMATION FOR THIS BLOG POST

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

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

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

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

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

MoneySense Comments on Retirees Incomes

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

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

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

Detailed Financial Information

Couples

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

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

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

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

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

Singles

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

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

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

Qualifying Statements by MoneySense about the two articles

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

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

Table

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

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

moneysense cost of retiring well

Analysis of the Financial Profiles of Couples Versus Singles

Marital Status

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

Benefits

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

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

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

Taxes

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

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

Benefits to Families of Coupled People

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

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

Emergency Monies

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

Education, Education, Education!!!

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

Singles require 70% of the income/wealth of Couples

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

 How expensive is it to raise a child?

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

Profiling

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

 Happy, happy, happy!!!!!

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

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

FINAL STATEMENT

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

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

INCOMPLETE REPORTING OF NEWS AND MEDIA ARTICLES PROMOTE FINANCIAL INEQUALITY OF SINGLES TO MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS

Posted on by
1

INCOMPLETE REPORTING OF NEWS AND MEDIA  ARTICLES PROMOTE FINANCIAL INEQUALITY OF SINGLES TO MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS

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

While it is recognized that news and media articles are limited by space, often what is left unsaid promotes financial inequality of singles in comparison to married/coupled persons.  Also, the misinformation of research and studies is perpetuated by other organizations picking up the misleading information and reprinting it.

Examples are as follows:

“Four Ways Senior Singles Lose Out” by Ted Rechtshaffen (outlined in Dec. 2, 2015 blog post /false-assumptions/).  Rechtshaffen’s article left ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated persons out by exclusion because the definition of single status was incorrectly used.  Instead, the ‘singles’ he referred to are actually widowers.  He stated how widowed persons financially lose out in tens of thousands of dollars because they are no longer part of a couple.  He suggests that tax systems should be made fairer, but only mentions widowed and later in life divorce/separated persons.  There is no mention of tax systems including ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced persons.

This article was republished by CARP carp/ (Canadian Association of Retired Persons) and was sited in other news media outlets such as Financial Post financialpost, and National Bank Clear Facts clearfacts.

“An Analysis of the Economic Circumstances of Canadian Seniors” by Richard Shillington of Tristat Resources and the Broadbent Institute (February 28, 2016 blog post continued-financial-illiteracy-of-financial-gurus)  was sited in several news articles as follows:

Huffington Post, Daniel Tencer, February 16, 2016 “Are Canadians Ready for Retirement?  Not Even Close, Broadbent Institute” (huffingtonpost.) states:

‘Half of Canadians aged 55 to age 64 who don’t have an employer pension have less than $3,000 saved up for retirement.

 

Nearly half (47 per cent) of Canadians aged 55 to 65 without an employer pension and earn $50,000 and $100,000 a year have saved an average of $21,000.

 

Among those who earn $25,000 – $50,000 and don’t have an employer pension, the average savings is a paltry $250.

Median Income for single seniors-At the same time, the study says social support for retirees has become less generous. Old Age Security (OAS) and the Guaranteed Income Supplement (GIS) have fallen behind over the decades, and now give seniors just 60 per cent of median income, down from 76 per cent in 1984.

 

The report comes as the federal government launches pre-budget consultation hearings. Though the study doesn’t delve into specific policy options, it says the Liberals’ plans to increase the GIS for singles retirees will make little dent in senior poverty.

 

The plan “should remove 85,000 senior singles from the poverty rolls — leaving 634,000 seniors living in poverty,” the left-leaning Broadbent Institute said in a statement.’

Globe and Mail, Shawn McCarthy, February 15, 2016 “Many Canadians entering retirement with inadequate savings, study (theglobeandmail) says:

‘Income trends suggest the percentage of Canadian seniors living in poverty will increase in the coming years, especially for single women who already face a higher than average rate, the report said. The poverty rate for seniors will climb at the same time as a sharply rising number of Canadians hit retirement age in the next two decades; more than 20 per cent of the population will be older than 65 within 10 years.

 

Ottawa’s pledge to increase by 10 per cent the guaranteed income supplement – paid out to the poorest seniors – would cost $700-million and remove 85,000 single people – mostly women – from the poverty rolls.  But that would still leave 634,000 seniors living below the poverty line. And that number will grow dramatically in the coming years.’

Global News, Monique Muise, National Online Journalist, February 16, 2016 “Canadians nearing retirement with ‘totally inadequate’ savings (globalnews):  study” observations are much the same as outlined above.

creb now (Calgary Real Estate Board) February 19 to 25, 2016, “Canadians ill-prepared for retirement”  (crebnow) study  observations are much the same as above, but also adds statement:

‘Already, the spread between the OAS/GIS guarantee levels and the low-income measure for 2015 – the spread that seniors need to fill using the Canada or Quebec Pension plans (CPP/QPP), private pensions and private savings – is about $5,600 for single seniors and $4,700 for couples. The overall median value of retirement assets of those aged 55 to 64 with no accrued employer pension benefits (representing 47 per cent of this age cohort), is just over $3,000.’

 

Also in big letters ‘Amongst Canada’s single persons without pension income, the median income in under $20,000’.

Not one of these articles mentions from the Broadbent Institute study that when using LIM the poverty rates for singles seniors is nearly 30 per cent.  Also, the proportion of the population receiving the GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement for Canadians in poverty) is higher for senior singles (including widowed) living alone than couples, and higher for single women (between 44 per cent and 48 per cent) than for single men (between 31 per cent and 37 per cent).  It also does not mention that reliance on the GIS is greater for single seniors that it is for senior couples across all age ranges.

In addition there are 719,000 seniors living below the poverty line.  This total includes 469,000 senior singles and 250,000 living in an economic family.  This is 65 per cent of singles in comparison to 35 per cent living in an economic family!  Sixty-five percent of singles, why is this never reported?  Why is the full information of singles finances never worthy enough to report with same equality as families?

Some of the articles above also mention the the new GIS increase of 10 per cent for single seniors “should remove 85,000 senior singles from the poverty rolls — leaving 634,000 seniors living in poverty.”  Statement with full truth should read:  “should remove 85,000 senior singles from the poverty rolls – leaving 634,000 seniors (384,000 senior singles and 250,000 living in an economic family)”.  This still leaves more senior singles in poverty than those living in an economic family!  ‘Half truths’ reporting sometimes is almost as good as telling a lie!

What also is not mentioned by the media is that the Broadbent Institute study does not treat home ownership as a retirement asset.  The report states:  

‘This analysis has not treated home equity as a retirement asset because the replacement rate analysis has as its objective an income that allows one to enjoy a lifestyle comparable to that which existed pre-retirement. We do not include home equity here because we accept that the pre-retirement lifestyle for many middle- and moderate-income Canadians includes continued home ownership’.

Home ownership is a big factor in determining the standard of living for seniors in their retirement years.  Statistics Canada 2011 shows approximately 69 per cent of Canadians own their own home.  About four out of five (82.4%) married/coupled people own their home, while less than half (48.5 per cent) of singles own their home.  Paying rent will have much more impact on poverty than owning a home outright.

CONCLUSION

To provide the real truth about singles’ poverty all it would have taken is the addition of 10 – 20 words to the articles (719,000 seniors live below the poverty line.  This total includes 469,000 senior singles and 250,000 living in an economic family.  The GIS increase for senior singles still leaves 634,000 seniors  – 384,000 senior singles and 250,000 living in an economic family in poverty).

The GIS increase of 10 per cent for senior singles is a paltry amount compared to all the marital manna benefits that has been given to married/coupled persons like pension splitting.

The sad reality is that by omission of singles from the conversation true facts of singles finances are never fully reported; therefore, there is little understanding on the part of married/coupled persons, families, government, businesses, and decision making bodies on what it truly costs singles to live.  Singles need to be included in financial formulas at the 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.

REWARD PROGRAMS BENEFIT MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS AND FAMILIES MORE THAN SINGLES

Posted on by
3

REWARD PROGRAMS BENEFIT MARRIED/COUPLED PERSONS AND FAMILIES MORE THAN SINGLES

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

In the last post money programs such as the Alaska Permanent Fund Dividend program was discussed on how these programs benefit married/coupled persons and families.

This post discusses ‘freebie’ programs like fuel discounts, and giveaways like glassware, etc.  Safeway Canada in Alberta will be used as the company of choice in the examples outlined here (note:  reward programs may vary from province to province).  A family of four will be compared to a single person’s grocery budget.  For ease of comparison a family grocery budget of $840 a month or $210 per week will be used and for a single person $200 a month or $50 per week (remember, previous reader opinion letters have stated singles should be able to live on  $200 a month for groceries /reader-opinion-letters/).  For ease of comparison a vehicle with 100 litre fuel capacity will be used for both family units and singles, even though it is recognized families are more likely to have vehicles with larger fuel capacity than singles.

(Caveat:  food budgets are dependent on region, what is included in food budget and the age of the children.  Some regions have very expensive food costs, some budgets include paper and cleaning products, and food budgets will increase as children get older.)

Present Safeway ‘freebie’ programs running at the present time include:

  • Fuel – Spend $35, get 5 cents off per litre
    • Spend $70, get 6 cents off per litre
    • Spend $105, get 7 cents off per litre
    • Spend $210, get 10 cents off per litre
  • Air Miles Points program –  Collect 95 cash miles – get $10 off grocery purchase (for comparison here only the coupon for ‘spend $100, get 100 air miles’ once per month will be used.  Additional air miles for buying certain products will not be used as it would be too difficult to calculate).
  • Glassware (Spiegelau) program – collect stamps from Oct 30, 2015 to March 3, 2016.  For every $10 spent in groceries, one stamp would be received at the checkout.  For every 50 stamps collected, purchaser would be eligible for one pair of glasses (for example, white wine, red wine glasses, etc.).  Safeway retail price stated in brochure is $39.99 for a pair of glasses.

COMPARISON

Fuel – For comparison purposes here, it will be assumed that families will spend $210 per week on groceries and, therefore, will receive 10 cents off per litre of gas.  For a vehicle with 100 litre fuel capacity requiring a complete refuel, the fuel discount would be $10 times four weeks for a total of $40 per month for a family and $5 time 4 or $20 a month for a single.  The total discount for four months for a family would be $160 for a family and $80 for a single; therefore, totals of $160 and $80 will be entered on chart.

Air Miles – If coupon ‘spend $100, get 100 air miles’ is used once per month families would be able to get a discount of approximately $40 on groceries (for every 95 Air Miles get $10 off) for four months, while singles would not be able to use this coupon as they have not spent $100 to get 100 air miles points.  On chart $40 will be entered for families and $0 will be entered for singles.

Glassware Rewards – Groceries by family at $840 per month times four months equals $3360.   This amount divided by $10 equals 336 stamps divided by 50 stamps gives possibility of acquiring 6 sets of glassware (2 glasses per set).  The value of six sets of glasses at approximately $40 or $240 will be entered on the chart.

Groceries for a single person at $50 per month equals $200 times four months for a total of $800.  This amount divided by $10 equals 80 stamps divided by 50 stamps gives a single person the possibility of acquiring only one set of glasses (2 glasses per set).  The value of one set of glasses at approximately $40 will be entered on the chart.

reward programs1

FINAL EVALUATION

For this particular example, families have been able to receive rewards totalling approximately $440 to that of $120 for a single person.  Married/coupled persons would probably fall halfway between families and single persons.

It should also be noted that even more rewards are possible if, for example, charge cards with reward points are used to buy groceries provided that the charge cards are paid every month in a responsible fashion so as not to have to pay interest charges.

It is also recognized that those ‘with the money’ (for example, the rich, middle class families and married/coupled persons) will be able to acquire more rewards value , than the poor and singles because the setup of the reward programs makes it possible for those ‘with the money’ and families to get more rewards.

LOST DOLLAR VALUE

This list is still a work in progress.  However, for the list a ’lost dollar value’ for singles $240 for fuel rebates will be used ($160 minus $80 times three for total of 12 months).  The only ‘lost dollar value’ that will be added to the list is the fuel rebate as this is the only constant available and easily calculated for an entire year.  (Lifetime total age 25 to 85, $240 times 60 years equals $14,000.)

CONCLUSION

Initially, examination of the fuel discount program reveals that this is a good program for those with less money to spend as only $35 needs to be spent to get a 5 cent discount, but $210 (six times more in dollars) needs to be spent to  get 10 cent or double discount. However, in the end, extra dollars spent on groceries and stacked rewards still means family of four will get a greater discount than the single person.

Manipulation of reward point programs can also occur in many ways.   It is known that some spouses of married/coupled persons and families will split the grocery bill between them.  A family with a $210 grocery bill will split bill between each spouse at $105 to each get 7 cents fuel discount and 100 air miles  Each spouse can fill up their vehicles once week and get 7 cent discount.

What can one say about rewards programs?  Not much, except to say that reward programs benefit the rich, married/coupled persons and middle class families the most. Can anything be done to level the playing field on reward programs for the poor and singles?  Probably not, except maybe to put a cap on the programs or eliminate them completely.  Elimination would mean everyone would be on level financial playing field with everyone paying same price.

Once again, most married/coupled persons, families and rich are completely unaware of the financial power and  advantage they have over the poor and singles.  And, imagine what other financial advantages are out there as this is only one reward program out of many.

The benefits of reward programs are in the eye of the beholder.  Of course, those who benefit the most relish the thought of accumulating whatever they can, often tier upon tier upon tier. Many believe that one should be rewarded more if one spends more, even if it is at the expense of the disadvantaged and those who have limited food budgets.

And, it does not help for singles to band together (for example two people)to buy groceries as half a discount on a tank of gas is only half a discount.  Half of a set of glassware is only one glass.  Singles are told over and over again that they spend too much.  The reality is that reward programs force them to pay more and get less for the necessities of life like groceries.

“OUR BIG FAT WALLET” BLOGGER’S OPINION -new-pilot-program-are-bigger-fuel-discounts-ahead/

The blog “Our Big Fat Wallet” talks about reward programs in the post ‘Safeway’s New Pilot Program:  Are Bigger Fuel Discounts Ahead?’  Some interesting comments are made on reward programs as well as reader comments as follows:

“Tiered Savings Programs

I’m hoping the pilot program is implemented permanently and other stores follow suit by increasing their fuel savings.

Ideally I would like to see stores have a tiered savings program like Safeway – that rewards bigger spenders with bigger savings. I like to eat – a lot – so our grocery costs tend to be higher than most.

A tiered savings program would benefit anyone who spends a decent amount each month on groceries and if all stores implemented a similar program, it wouldn’t matter what store you buy your groceries at.

If you spend more than $200 in-store, you should be rewarded with a larger fuel discount than someone who only spends $35. With food prices climbing higher and higher, it’s becoming even easier to reach new heights on grocery bills so any additional discount at the pumps would help.

 

Reader comment:

Interesting! When will we know whether the “test program” is put in for good? I’m secretly hoping it is as my husband and I spend way more on groceries than we should so any place we can save a buck or two helps

 

Another reader comment:

I love fuel money tied to grocery stores. Where I live, gas prices are provincially regulated, so there is no option of driving down the street a kilometer and saving an extra $0.02/L, so these programs are the only way to get discounts.

A while ago, Sobey’s had a deal where if you bought $200 in GCs you would get $0.10/L off. And you could stack them. Then, if you used them at their gas station, you got $0.035/L to use in the grocery store. It was an awesome circle because you sometimes they’d let you buy gift cards with other gift cards. We got a few very cheap tanks of gas, LOL.

“Our Big Fat Wallet Blogger comment”:

I actually didn’t know gas prices could be provincially regulated. Using gift cards to buy gift cards – now that’s a sweet deal!

 

Another reader comment:

It’s really nice that it works in your favor, especially since you spend a lot on groceries. Well, hopefully they will implement it permanently!

“Our Big Fat Wallet” Blogger’s response to this reader’s comment:

I am hoping they will implement the program for good and that other retailers will be forced to offer more incentives so we can all start to get bigger fuel discounts”

This concludes the post.

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

 

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

Posted on by
1

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

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

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

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

Alaska Permanent Funds Dividends

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

ANALYSIS

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

SOLUTIONS

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

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

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

 

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

Posted on by
6

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

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

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

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

COMMENTS ON  REPORT – PART 2 OF 2

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

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

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

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

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

financial silos6

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

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

SOLUTIONS

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

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

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

 

 

FAMILY: INCLUSIONARY OR EXCLUSIONARY TERM AND FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION

Posted on by
1

FAMILY:  INCLUSIONARY OR EXCLUSIONARY TERM AND FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The mentality of government, decision makers, businesses and families in this country is to serve only the rich and middle class families while generally ignoring singles, low income and no income individuals and families.   Families will often talk about how important the family unit is for them in regards to maintaining close ties to friends and families.  They talk about about how their ‘hearts are eternally and inexplicably changed’ when bearing their children, but same hearts appear to become ‘hearts of stone’ when these same children become adult singles, low income or no income persons and families.  These disadvantaged persons are tossed out or are less important in financial  formulas and decision-making processes.

CONCLUSION

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

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

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

 

COMPANY PERKS BENEFIT FAMILIES MORE THAN SINGLES CAUSING FINANCIAL UNFAIRNESS

Posted on by
Reply

SOME COMPANY PERKS BENEFIT FAMILIES MORE THAN SINGLES (SINGLES ARE SUBSIDIZING THESE PROGRAMS)

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

The Province of Alberta has once again released its Top 70 Employers for 2016.

In addition to the usual maternity, paternity leaves, day-care etc., perks that benefit families more than singles include the following:

  • Academic scholarship program for children of employees who are interested in pursuing post-secondary education, up to $1,000 per child. (This is in addition to federal and provincial education benefit programs).
  • Helps newcomers gain Canadian work experience with short-term internships, offered in partnership with Immigrant Services and Centre for Newcomers. (While it is recognized that this is a good thing for immigrants, this program should be offered equally to Canadians.  Immigrant families are favoured over single immigrants in relocation programs to Canada).
  • Compassionate top-up payments for employees who are called upon to care for a loved one. (The problem with this is often the definition of “loved one”.  It is often very inclusive to only close members of the family).
  • Parent employees with college-bound kids have access to an academic scholarship program, as well as summer, co-op and internship employment programs. (This program is again very inclusive to parent employees).
  • Academic scholarship program to encourage children of employees to pursue post-secondary studies (up to $3,000 per child). (While this employer does offer first perk of long-term development of its employees through tuition subsidies for courses taken at outside institutions (up to $5,000), parent employees get second perk for their children on top of  third perk of federal and provincial education benefit programs for their children).
  • Offers parents-to-be a generous subsidy for in-vitro fertilization (IVF) treatments up to $5,000.

Almost all employers offer some form of compassionate/bereavement programs (and this is a good thing).  However, these are often restricted to  close family members and in-laws.  Families often fail to recognize that they have double benefits as these programs compensate both sides of the family.  Singles tend to use less of these benefits, and therefore, it could be said that they are subsidizing families in this regard.  Singles through their taxes also support the mother/baby hospital care, maternal/paternal leaves and EI (employment insurance) programs for parents.

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

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

Posted on by
4

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

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

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

EXAMPLES OF FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

CONCLUSIONS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

FINANCIAL GURUS FINANCIALLY ILLITERATE ABOUT SINGLES’ FINANCES

Posted on by
1

FINANCIAL GURUS FINANCIALLY ILLITERATE ABOUT SINGLES’ FINANCES

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

In the definition of family, for example Canada Revenue Agency, ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated persons are included in the definition of family, but in financial discussions by financial gurus they are often ‘kicked out’ of the family.

Financial gurus are often financially illiterate and discriminatory in the financial affairs of singles.  The most often egregious examples of this is the exclusion of  ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated persons from their blogs and studies.  The following three examples are used as a basis for this post.

Example #1

(false-assumptions-four-ways-seniors-singles-lose) The December 2, 2015 post “False Assumptions of Article ‘Four Ways Senior Singles Lose Out’” talks about false assumptions and false categorization of singles by Ted Rechtshaffen’s October 13, 2012 article “Four Ways Senior Singles Lose Out”.  In this article he states how widowed persons financially lose out in tens of thousands of dollars because they are no longer part of a couple.   He suggests that tax systems should be made fairer for only widowed and later in life divorced/separated persons.  ‘Ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated persons were left out by exclusion because definition of single status was incorrectly used.  (Ted Rechtshaffen is president and wealth advisor at TriDelta Financial, a boutique wealth management and planning firm) (http://www.tridelta.ca/)

Example #2

(thebluntbeancounter)  The Blunt Bean Counter blog by Mark Goodfield article “The Burden of Singledom” May 6, 2014 is a response to a single person who stated his blog series on retirement was no help and was indeed obscene (this was stated in his blog) to her as a single person.  He is a Chartered Professional Accountant who readily admits that his blog is for everyone, but in particular high net worth individuals and owners of private corporations.  He states that the target audience was not singles or low income Canadians for the retirement series.  There is no problem with this statement; however, he asked Rona Birenbaum to do a guest post, a well-known and often quoted financial planner who also typically deals with high net worth clients.  Her article, ‘The Burden of Singledom’ again gave no meaningful advice beyond what is already known by singles.

Example #3

Dr. Jack Mintz is the President’s Fellow of the School of Public Policy at the University of Calgary.  Jack Mintz and Philip Bazel published an article in February 2014 called “Income Adequacy among Canadian Seniors:  Helping Singles Most” (policyschool.ucalgary)

In the article the following statements are made:

‘Policies should be directed at these most vulnerable single seniors, such as enhancements to the GIS top-up program targeted at those seniors with the lowest incomes, and increased survivor-benefit rates under the Canada Pension Plan.’

’When the income inadequacy of singles and married couples is evaluated using LICO (Low Income Cut-Off), we find a significantly higher incidence of elderly singles with income under $20,000 below the LICO threshold (52.6 percent) when compared with the LICO incidence of elderly households containing a married couple below $40,000 (15.7 per cent for households containing a couple with one elderly, and 6.3 per cent for households containing a couple with two elderly)’.

Such a statement shows financial illiteracy to the finances realities of senior singles as it costs them 70 per cent of what it costs a married/couple persons to live as a single unit.  A better alternative would be to forget the marital manna benefits directed to survivors or widowed persons and treat all senior singles whether they are ‘ever’ singles, divorced/separated or widowed persons as equals with top-ups equal to 70 percent of married/coupled person units.  The 52.6 per cent for singles versus 15.7 and 6.3 per cent for married persons mentioned in above quote shows an enormous spread between the two and is proof of this.  Financially, while in a coupled state, widowed persons appear to have a pretty good quality of life while singles below LICO appear to never have an equivalent quality of life.

(Many low income singles do not have close family members to live with and when they are forced to cohabitate in non-family situations, they often live in undesirable situations such as other household members stealing food, etc., “Social Housing Waitlists and the One Person Households in Ontario”)  (to-rent-or-own-affordable-housing-that-is-the-question)

Seniors living with family is an expense to the family unit.  However, senior singles living on their own have to incur not only 100% of the living costs, but also 70% of the costs of married/coupled persons as a single unit.

Financial gurus state that 70 per cent replacement of pre-retirement income is the standard norm for retirement.  Statistics Canada analysis has found that gross replacement rates vary by income but typically is about 70 percent.  People in the lowest 20 percent income quintile have replacement rates of 100 percent, implying their real standard of living actually rises after retirement. However, the real truth common sense evaluation of these findings show that married/coupled people financially benefit more than singles and divorced/separated persons.  A higher income level for the low income single person is still a low level income.  Financial gurus seem to think that when Canadians have an equal or greater income during retirement than while they are working, that is okay.  Try telling that to low income Canadian ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separate persons who have not received the same benefits and are unable to save at the same rate as families or married/coupled persons during their working lives and, therefore, have lower retirement income.

(senior-singles-pay-more-part-4-of-4-response-to-reader-letters) An example of retired ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated singles receiving less is the December 22, 2015 blog “Senior Singles Pay More, Part 4 of 4”  showing that in a targeted tax relief program single seniors pay no tax on up $20,360 income, while married/coupled seniors pay no tax on up to $40,720 income.  (It costs more for singles to live person to person that it does for married/coupled persons.  This program barely covers the rent for a senior single, but allows married/couple senior to live a much better financial lifestyle).  A further example is the 10 per cent increase of the GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) for low income single seniors in the 2015 budget. One person has indicated that this has amounted to an increase of only $17 per month.

Conclusion

  1. Financial gurus like Chartered Professional Accountants, writers of blogs, members of think tanks and financial planners need to educate themselves and include all singles in their discussions, not just widowed persons and later in life divorced/separated singles.
  2. Financial gurus need to insure singles of all types are given fair and equal financial status in financial formulas and decision making.
  3. Financial gurus need to become educated on what it truly costs ‘ever’ singles and early in life divorced/separated persons to live.  It costs these persons 70 percent of what it costs married/coupled persons to live as a unit.  These extra living costs need to be included in financial formulas and financial decision making.

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

TO RENT OR OWN AFFORDABLE HOUSING – THAT IS THE QUESTION

Posted on by
5

TO RENT OR OWN AFFORDABLE HOUSING -THAT IS THE QUESTION

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 will discuss whether renting or affordable housing are good housing options for single and low income persons.

  1. RENTING AS VIABLE OPTION FOR LANDLORDS AND RENTERS

Rental costs from landlord perspective:  A review of financial information shows that in order to generate a 5% annual return on  a $250,000 rental property with no mortgage costs, the expenses incurred will be  as follows:

What Landlords think they need to make renting their spaces a revenue generating business at 5 percent profit in the Calgary market:

              rent charged (2 bedrooms)            $12,500

              condo fees ($325 X 12)                 $  3,900

              PT taxes                                        $  1,500

              upkeep (paint, carpet, etc.)            $  1,200

               extra cost of wear (kids/pets)       $  1,200

          TOTAL RENT PER MONTH             $20,300 divided by 12 months  = $1,700

This does not include costs associated with loss of income when property is vacant, cost of major upkeep such as replacing appliances, cupboards every 5 to ten years, damages incurred from kids and pets, eviction costs, insurance, etc.

Arguments for and against high rental costs from perspective of landlords and renters

A review of an online article “Calgary Landlords war against the poor?” (landlords) shows pro and con comments on why landlords think they need to charge the present rental amounts and why poor are left out because they cannot afford to pay the present high rental  amounts.  Arguments are also made as to whether or not mortgage payments should be included in the rental costs; if included, then even higher rents need to be collected.

Comments on the side of the poor and low income include:

  • ‘So then I ask you, where are these people supposed to go?  No offense, but the “it’s just business, nothing personal” should have no place when talking about human lives.’

  • ‘Gouging is a very common competent of a working free-market.  The right (Conservative and like) just don’t want to admit they’re are (…..) for doing it.  It is not about right or wrong.  The difference between a renter and a landlord is that the landlord has assets.  So even if you are living in a home and renting a condo,  having to shell out money for repairs doesn’t exactly cost you as much (in the long run) as it would a long term renter.  Because eventually you can sell that property and retire in comfort.  It is very hard for a person who is just starting out with nothing to build themselves up to your level  It is not that we don’t want to be there, it is just that there may not be as much opportunity for us so called “low-lives” as one may think.  So when your entire income goes to shelter, food and clothing, there is not much left to save for any sort of down payment on anything…’

  • ‘You are already making money by charging a tenant the mortgage, the land tax and the insurance.  The mortgage part is already profit.  An accumulated investment  Beyond that, maybe a little more, is gouging.  These people can’t see that is wrong.  If they could charge a million dollars a month they would.’

One of the last reader comments submitted was the following (it is interesting to note that this comment pretty much shut up any further comments being made):

  • ‘When, by gouging people for the necessities of life such as food and shelter, you contribute to the cost of living being higher than a working person can afford.  You force me as a taxpayer in a rather high tax bracket, I might add ,to pay for the subsidization required to keep these people from starving or being out on the street or alternatively imprisonment when they steal to live, or more cops to maintain social order with a starving underclass.  I’m tired of deadbeat free-riders trying to shuffle the externalities of their greed onto me.  It is time for some controls being placed on the ability of landlords to  raise rents.  Rental increases being limited to 5% or double to rate of inflation annually, whichever is lower, seems reasonable to me.

Some comments suggested that most people should stay away from the landlord game as it is not a profitable business for the lighthearted.

Landlord profile and Financial Planner Advice

Financial profile of a married couple is as follows:  Calgary Herald, December 12, 2015 (and Edmonton Journal) Financial Post “Oil Crash Forces  Fix for Couple” (edmonton-journal)

This summary is about Gary, 60 and Wendy, 67, an Alberta couple who grew prosperous with Gary’s work as a petrochemical  engineer often earning as much as $200,000 a year doing consulting.  However, his work is now history as a casualty of collapsed oil prices.  Wendy worked as an administrative assistant earning $24,000 a year before she retired in 1990 (well before age 65, by the way).  Their income at the present time is $2,175 a month and is $3,240 less than their total monthly expenses of $5,415.  (Part of their income is $590 after expenses from their two rental properties.) They say they need to know if they can survive.  The article does mention one child is renting one of their rental properties.

  • Their net worth is $1,867,238.  Their assets include residence $550,000, rental property #1, $460,000, and rental property #2 $430,000.  Their investments include Registered Retirement Savings Plan $132,616, USA 401K in Canadian dollars $250,000, Tax Free Savings Account $39,334, non-registered savings/GICs $174,288 and two cars $17,000.  Their total  liabilities are two mortgages of $186,000 on rental properties.

The profile states the largest problem is that the couple’s income properties, which make up 60 per cent of their invested assets, produce little cash flow.  One unit is rented to the couple’s son and its $1,150 monthly rent is below market values.  Their other rental property generates $1,300 a month before expenses.

The financial planner makes the argument:  ‘When Gary generated an income of $200,000 a year or more, they could afford to ignore investments, rent properties below market value and spend freely’. The financial planner’s recommendation is get rid of money losing rental property, cut expenses and reallocate assets to cut investment costs.  It doesn’t seem to matter to the financial planner that this couple has acquired huge financial assets in their rental properties ($700,000+ value).

Conclusions about Renting

Renting income properties from landlord’s perspective is that this is a business and needs to generate a profit even when renting to singles (son in above example)and the poor (many of whom cannot afford $1,700 for rent).  In other words, the goal of financial Utopia in a land of ‘milk and honey’ (Alberta) will never be achieved by the landlord with reasonable rents and certainly not by singles and the poor who are renting.  Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs principle for singles and the poor will also be violated when basic needs of shelter as well as food and clothing will not be realized.

UNAFFORDABLE RENT = VIOLATION OF “MASLOW’S HIERARCHY OF NEEDS” PRINCIPLE

For landlords and families who think singles and low income persons deserve only a single room‘ or ‘should live with someone’ they should read the January, 2009 study “Social Housing Waitlists and the One Person Households in Ontario” (cprn.org) on what it is like to live in these housing circumstances.  An excerpt from this study reads as follows:

‘many households turn to shelters or make do with what they are able to find in the private market, often spending more than 50% of their income on rent. The focus of this study is one-person households under the age of 65 who make up approximately 40% of the applicants on Ontario social housing wait lists. This cohort has the longest wait times. How does this demographic cope during these waiting periods? What are their housing experiences? ‘

 

  1.  AFFORDABLE HOUSING AS VIABLE OPTION FOR SINGLES AND LOW-INCOME

From “Upside-Down Finances re Housing for Singles and Low Income – Part 1 of 3”, November 13, 2015 post (upside-down-affordable-housing), one example of housing shows condos presently being sold as follows:  1 bed, 1 bath, 1 patio micro-condo of 552 sq. ft. with starting price of $299,900 and $543 per square foot..   Two patio, 3 bed, 2.5 bath, 2 and 3 story 1830 sq. ft. condos priced from $649,900 to $749,900.start at $355 per square foot.

Singles and single parent with children are more likely to buy one bedroom housing.  Ripple effects are owners of micro-condos have to proportionately pay more house taxes, education taxes, mortgage interest and real estate fees on less house and less take home pay since these fees are based on price of property, not square footage of the property.  When it is sold, will seller recoup buying price?

Financial  world for singles and low income continues to be completely flipped upside-down and turned topsy-turvy for housing while the rich and middle-income families  pay less and get more.

COMBINATION SINK AND TOILET IN TINY SPACE

As in many parts of the world, parts of Canada are heading for a crisis in affordable housing.  Different solutions have been proposed to avert this crisis.  One is Attainable Housing, (attainyourhome), for example in Calgary, which allows maximum household income of $90,000 for single and dual/parent families with dependent children living in the home and maximum household income of $80,000 for singles and couples without dependent children living in the home.  While this method allows singles and low income to enter the housing market with a low down payment, it does not alleviate the problem of insane upside-down pricing of housing as outlined in the example shown above.  Another solution that has been proposed is an affordable housing action plan of inclusionary zoning where a certain percentage of new housing units built  would be social and community housing partly funded by government programs, and a certain percentage of new housing units would be affordable rental or ownership housing units built by the private sector.  However, developers and the housing associations will argue this will not work (as only new purchasers will be participating) and neighbors continue to have a “not in my backyard” mentality (NIMBY).  Tiny house NIMBY mentality also extends to homeowners who don’t want tiny houses near their properties.

Calgary Herald “‘Nothing new’ from housing collective” article, December 16, 2015 (calgaryherald) is a 46 – page document – 18 months in the making – and calls on homeless and housing organizations, the development industry and governments to ‘work  together differently’ for at least two years, developing ‘Calgary-based solutions with blueprints for action’ and providing support as required.  The mayor, in addition to other parties, is disappointed at how long study has taken and states that ‘time for talk’ is over.

Conclusions about Affordable Housing

There is no affordable housing for singles and low income persons when they are forced to pay more for less space with less income than the rich and middle-class families.  Inaction and NIMBY continues to be prevailing principle for Affordable Housing.

Conclusion overall for Renting and Affordable Housing for Singles and Low Income

Options for both renting and affordable housing continues to become more and more out of reach for singles and low income.  

 

rent-buy1

So, when both renting and affordable housing are out of reach for singles and low income persons, just what are they to do?

“Eggleton: Canada needs more affordable housing” September 20, 2015  (eggleton) article in the Ottawa Citizen states:

‘I think we all understand intuitively the importance of having decent shelter. A home anchors a person, anchors a family. It provides a foundation for people to move forward toward greater stability in the workplace or higher educational attainment. Health experts also tell us that adequate housing is a key determinant of health and long-term health outcomes’.

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