FAMILY: INCLUSIONARY OR EXCLUSIONARY TERM AND FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION

Posted on February 15, 2016 by ffswpadmin

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.

ARE FAMILIES REALLY MORE FINANCIALLY INTELLIGENT IN MANAGING FINANCES?

Posted on January 24, 2016 by ffswpadmin

ARE FAMILIES REALLY MORE FINANCIALLY INTELLIGENT IN MANAGING FINANCES?

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

Financial Post personal finance profile “Put Cash Toward the Kids’ Education” and in Calgary Herald on January 16, 2016 (financialpost)

The following is a condensed version of the financial profile of Harry 39, and Wendy 38, a British Columbia couple with two children ages two and a few months old. (Question: Did they marry later in life resulting in a low net worth at this time in their life because it is more difficult to accumulate net worth while single than as married/coupled persons?)

Their take home pay is $9,100 a month plus $240 take home universal child care benefits put into place this year by the federal government for total annual take home pay of $112,000. They both have defined benefit retirement pension plans, so it should be noted that contributions to their plans have already been deducted before take home pay total.

Their expenses include real estate mortgage, property tax, and home repair $3,489, car costs $550, food and cleaning supplies $1,200, clothes/grooming $150, charity/gifts $200, child care $850, entertainment $120, restaurant $280, travel $150, miscellaneous $626, utilities $350, phone/cable/internet $200, home and car insurance $325.

For savings they contribute $800 to TFSA (Tax Free Savings Account), and $50 to RESP (Registered Education Savings Program).

Their assets include house $500,000, cars $20,000, savings including RRSP Registered Retirement Savings Plan), RESP, TFSA (Tax Free Savings Account) and cash $40,700.

Their net worth equals $150,700.

What they want:

retire at age 55
buy a condo for the children’s grandparents to use when they are in town and to rent out at other times

Financial Planner Analysis

they haven’t made wills or appointed guardians for their children
they have no term life insurance
they can’t retire at age 55, but they can retire at age 59
they can’t afford to buy a condo as they don’t have the money for down payment
they should fully contribute to their children’s education plan into order to get the government benefit

Retirement plan

if they retire at age 59 assuming they remain with their present employers, their total income would be $96,732 plus Harry’s $9,570 CPP(Canadian Pension Plan) and Wendy’s $12,060 CPP.
At age 65, with the addition of OAS (Old Age Security), their total income will be $111,146 before income tax. There will be no clawback on OAS and with pension splitting, they will pay only 14% income tax and have a monthly take home income of $7,965 to spend.

Other Financial Analysis By Blog Author

they want to retire at age 55, but their children will only be ages 15 and 16, and their mortgage won’t be paid off until Harry is age 63. How financially intelligent is this?
they are not taking advantage of ‘free’ government benefits of $500 per child by not maximizing children’s RESP.
Harry is an immigrant who came to Canada at age 30 (nine years ago), and he wants to retire at age 55. He will have contributed to Canadian financial coffers for only 25 years. If he retires at age 59 he will also get what could be a 15% tax reduction with pension splitting at age 65. Canadian born singles and single immigrants do not get these same benefits and are subsidizing married/coupled immigrants who in many cases have taken more from the Canadian financial coffers than they have put into it.
with pension splitting and no clawback on OAS, they will only pay 14% income tax. Singles with equivalent pension income pay a lot more income tax. (It is stated elsewhere in the article that Wendy’s tax rate at present time while working is 29%).
their food and restaurant (including some cleaning supplies) budget is over $1400 a month for two adults and two very young children (does not include entertainment budget of $180 month). Their restaurant budget is $280 alone and yet many families think singles should live on only $200 a month for food.

Lessons Learned

married/coupled persons and families receive marital manna benefits while they are parents and while they are retired. One could say the only persons who contribute fully to the Canadian tax system while getting less benefits are singles.
married/coupled persons and families are not any more financially intelligent at managing their finances than single persons.
married/coupled persons and families all want to retire at the age of 55 regardless of their financial circumstances. Most singles do not have this option. Why should families bringing in $9,000 a month after tax income get $240 after tax child benefits and child education benefits and, then when they retire early at age 59, also get what is probably a 15% pension splitting tax reduction resulting in take home income of $8,000 at age 65 when their children are grown up? This is a very rich retirement income that most singles cannot aspire to.
Families, governments and decision makers all talk about expensive it is to raise children. For one Canadian child, the cost is about $250,000. So if cost is spread over 25 years of the child, cost per year is $10,000 per year, or in the case of this family $20,000 per year for two children. Their total after tax income is almost $10,000 per month, so approximately two out of twelve months income will be spent raising their children. The remaining income is for themselves. Add in another month of income for the children’s education ($10,000 times 20 years equals $200,000 not including government top up) and that still leaves them with nine month of income for themselves. So again, how expensive is it to raise children when this family has over $80,000 a year to spend on themselves?
When families (including married later in life) in top 40% Canadian income levels can retire at age 55 and 59, they spread the family financial myths and lie to singles, low income families, themselves, the world and God about how expensive it is to raise children and why they need income splitting and pension splitting. Low and middle class families are paying more and getting less for government programs. Singles of all income levels are paying even more and getting less (singles are considered to be in the upper 20% quintile of the Canadian rich with before tax income of only $55,000 and up. Wow, that is really rich).
singles know that they are paying more taxes and getting less in benefits. They also know they are subsidizing families when they work 35, 40 years without using mom/baby hospital resources,don’t use EI benefits at same level as families for parental leave, and don’t get marital manna benefits during retirement.
singles know they have been financially discriminated against by being left out of government financial formulas and are not seen as financial equals to married/coupled persons.

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

UPSIDE-DOWN FINANCES RE HOUSING FOR SINGLES AND LOW-INCOME-PART 1 OF 3

Posted on November 13, 2015 by ffswpadmin

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.

UPSIDE DOWN FINANCES OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING SINGLES AND LOW INCOME-PART 1 of 3

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

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

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

To further magnify the issue, lottery in major northern Alberta city has first grand lottery prize of $2,092,000 for 6,490 sq. ft. house ($322 per sq. ft.), second grand prize of $1,636,000 for 5,103 sq. ft. house ($321 per sq. ft.), and third grand prize of $1,558,000 for 5,097 sq. ft. house ($306 per sq. ft.). First house has elevator, games/theatre area, kid’s lounge, gym, and music room. Second house has hockey arena with bleacher seating, lounge and bar. Third house has spa, gym, yoga studio, juice bar and media room. Need anything more be said about the rich? They usually get more while paying less and acquiring choicest spots.

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

How is any of this different than loan-sharking or pay day loans where targeting of the most vulnerable occurs?

Article, “The Micro Units Movement” May 27, 2015 (smartergrowth) states

‘although micro units are cheaper on an absolute scale for buyers, they tend to be more valuable for developer on a per square foot basis. Shawn Hildebrand, vice president of condo research firm Urbanation, says condos under 500 square feet can bring in well over $3 per square foot, while the rest of the market averages around $2.50 or $2.60′.

(Lies, lies and more lies-Mark Twain quote ‘there are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies and statistics’-it is more than $3). Cheaper on absolute scale? (These tiny spaces are not cheaper for economies of scale.) Why is it okay on any scale to financially rob the poor, low income, young people and singles in what will likely be most expensive purchase of their lives and affecting one of most basic principles of Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs, that is shelter?

MoneySense, September/October, 2015, (moneysense) ‘Two ways to cool white-hot home prices’ says as much by stating developers, motivated by profit, have built mostly smaller one and two bedroom units. This article also talks about how concern should not be how much houses cost, but how out of reach home ownership for Canadians has become.

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

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

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

In this so called civilized, enlightened country of ours, it appears that citizens of value are only middle-income families and the rich while individuals/singles with and without children are being annihilated from financial, political, and everyday living scenes. (Examples are present day TV home buying/renovation programs and married/coupled persons getting free homes in “Home Free” program. Individuals/singles without children have been eliminated from these programs. Why is this so-probably because they no longer have financial wherewithal to be part of this programming, just blatant discrimination or both?)

If families have such high family values, shouldn’t family values and moral social values take precedence instead of being trumped by almighty dollar greed and philosophy of charging what the market can bear and more?

Low income families, individuals/singles and young adults not yet married who can apply simple math and critical thinking skills are in financial despair and angst knowing that they, as the most vulnerable citizens of this country, have been targeted and pawned to pay more for housing than middle class families and the rich.

It is the duty of politicians elected by the people, for the people to represent all Canadian citizens, not just vote getting middle class families. (MoneySense article-‘housing affordability for the many should take precedence over the political aspirations of a few’). To stop gross financial discrimination of low-income families and individuals/singles, talk to your Member of Parliament and mayors about financial unfairness and the upside/down financial world you are being forced into particularly in the housing market.

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.

TFSA BOONDOGGLE FOR SINGLES AND LOW-INCOME CANADIANS

Posted on November 8, 2015 by ffswpadmin

TFSA BOONDOGGLE FOR SINGLES AND LOW -INCOME CANADIANS

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.

Comment: This article was previously published in a local newspaper and is available on the internet. There were 51 recommends for this article. The final outcome (dependent on the results of the October 2015 Canadian Election) was that proposed changes to increase the TFSA to $10,000 by the Conservative party election promises was reverted back to $5,500 by the successful Liberal Party under Prime Minister Justin Trudeau . Regardless of what the TFSA limit is, with no cap on the contribution amounts, individuals/singles will still be at a significant financial disadvantage to married/coupled persons. Wording has been slightly changed from the original publication but does not change the thought content of the original publication (changes and additions to wording have been italicized).

The Federal Progressive Conservatives had in their infinite wisdom proposed in an election promise that the Tax Free Savings Account (TFSA) limits be changed from $5,500 to $10,000 per year.

To show the effects of having just $5,500 as a contribution amount for married/partnered versus individual/single Canadians, everybody sharpen your financial pencils and dare to do this simple math exercise-calculator not required.

Step 1 – Create two columns, one labelled married/partnered, the other individual/single. In each column for year 1 enter $11,000 for highest possible contribution for both spouses, and $5,500 for a single. Continue up to year 5 or up to year 40 (suggested number of income producing years). Then total the amounts in each column. At year 5 married/partnered total will be $55,000, single amount will be $27,500.

Step 2 – Now using the ‘Rule of 72’ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_72 -calculate the amount of possible compounding interest, investment income that can be generated from amounts in each column. Rate of return of 7 per cent will double the bottom line amount in 10 years and double again in 20 years and so on. Okay, you can use a calculator for this step!

Step 3 – Create a graph for amounts in each column, one for married/partnered totals, another line for individual/single totals. Each step in the graph could be shown for every five years up to forty years.

Results for $5,500 contribution (not including investment or interest amounts) amounts are shown in table below:

TFSA MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTIONS PER YEAR FOR MARRIED/PARTNERED VERSUS SINGLES

NOTE: Does not include potential compounded interest/investment income

TFSA TOTAL Married/Partnered Individual/Single

Year 5 $ 55,000 $ 27,500

Year 10 $110,000 $ 55,000

Year 15 $165,000 $ 82,500

Year 20 $220,000 $110,000

Year 25 $275,000 $137,500

Year 30 $330,000 $165,000

Year 35 $385,000 $192,500

Year 40 $440,000 $220,000

This simple math exercise, which takes TFSA financial amounts down to the lowest common denominator, shows the proposed $10,000 yearly TFSA (all tax free!) would exponentially increase the wealth of married/partnered and high-income Canadians, while flat-lining the wealth of singles and low-income Canadians.

Add in Registered Retirement Savings account (RRSP) amounts with potential investment growth and wealth spread becomes even wider.

Thank you, Progressive Conservative Party for failing this simple math exercise, lining your own pockets just because you are married/partnered and wealthy, lining the pockets of married/partnered and high-income Canadians to levels of untold wealth while kicking off the financial bus individuals/singles and low-income Canadians who are unable to max out TFSA and RRSP contributions or make contributions to both programs.

Shame on Finn Poschmann, V.P. and Director of Research, C.D. Howe Institute for also failing this simple math exercise. In the Calgary Herald, “Popularity of TFSAs could mean lifetime cap in the future”, April 23, 2015, page D3 and business.financialpost.com/personal-finance he states:

“That is absolutely fantastic, when you picture a world where a huge share of Canadians are retiring and living for a very long time, knowing that they have significant savings on hand. And there will less draw on public support programs which is also great….” He further goes on to state: “When TFSAs do become big, they may be a political target, and a financial target for government. However, it would be morally wrong for government to turn course, then, and go back on the commitment made to savers when they are doing their saving. So changing the tax rules retroactively would be very, very bad”.

Who are your financial advisors that would lead you to such an off-balanced decision and statement? Why would think tank persons, who are supposedly critical thinkers, and politicians make such a morally unfair decision to increase TFSA amounts without a cap in the first place and then think it is morally wrong for government to change course after the morally unfair decision has been made? This decision does nothing to erase the use of public support programs as only the wealthy will benefit from raising the TFSA amount.

It is no wonder that Canadian individuals/singles with and without children and low-income persons are in financial despair, repeat, financial despair. With governments, businesses, society and families giving financial preference and perks to married/coupled people and full complement families with two heads of households, individuals/singles are repeatedly having to pay more and get less and can’t even remotely begin to ever ‘catch up’ or be on an equal playing field with married/coupled Canadians.

Financial discrimination and violation of the human rights of individuals/singles and low income people must stop. There must be a cap on TSFA amounts and the cap must be put in place right now rather than later. It is socially, morally and ethically reprehensible, irresponsible and shameful to consciously make the already wealthy even wealthier at the expense of the poor.

Political parties who fail to use simple math formulations to avoid financial discriminatory policies and promises don’t deserve to be in power. Get out and vote! Individuals/singles and low income Canadians, contact your Members of Parliament regarding the financial discrimination of singles and low income persons! (Election took place in October, 2015 with the Liberal party winning a majority and TFSA amount remaining at $5,500).

Lost Dollars Value List

Stay tuned, this is a work in progress and will hopefully appear in future blog entries.

(This paragraph on lost dollar value for TFSA was added April 10, 2016 – If age 25 to age 65 or forty years and annual contribution of $5,000 is calculated for maximum contribution of TFSA that can be used by spouse number two, then calculated lost dollar value equals $200,000 – $5,000 times 40 years. This does not include amounts lost through compound interest and investment potential.)

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.