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.

COUNTRY SHOCKED BY VETERANS HOMELESSNESS

Posted on by
Reply

 

COUNTRY SHOCKED BY VETERANS HOMELESSNESS

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

March, 2015 study has revealed that approximately 2,250 veterans are homeless.or about 2.7 per cent of the total homeless population (homeless-veterans).  There is shock that there are homeless veterans and it took five years to track the data.  Average age of homeless veterans is 52 years of age compared to 37 years of age for general homeless population.  Review of online information reveals that many veterans joined armed forces because of lack of jobs as in Atlantic Canada, and then come back to again no jobs.  Age in fifties also makes it more difficult to integrate back into civilian life. Many of these homeless are single or if married/ partnered suffer broken marriages/partnerships because of the mental stresses of service.

Why should this be shocking when 300,000 Canadian persons or families are waiting for affordable housing ?  In addition immigrants are brought into country, given temporary free housing and jobs adding further insult to injury.  (In recent news immigrant family,while travelling to Jamaica, found their Canadian-born child is on a ‘no fly’ list – so what is this, immigrant family wealthy enough to have a nice little vacation while Canadian-born persons are homeless or waiting affordable housing?)

The mentality of government, decision makers, businesses and families in this country is to serve only the rich and middle class families while ignoring singles, low income and no income individuals and families.   When reading or listening to articles on housing for families, families will always talk about how important their housing is for them in regards to entertaining and maintaining close ties to friends and families.  They talk 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.  The greed of business decisions takes over from family values and these disadvantaged persons are tossed out or are considered less important or non-existant in financial  formulas and decision-making processes.

Housing is just one example.  Those with the money and decision making powers continue the NIMBY mentality where they do not want to see tiny houses or condos in their precious spaces.  When tiny condos are built, for example 200 square feet, the purchasers of these spaces are often forced to pay more on less square foot living space and less take-home income than families paying for houses (thus violating Maslow’s Hierarchy of Needs (Maslow%27s_hierarchy_of_needs).  One example is a complex in Calgary where the 532 square foot condo is $299,900 or $543 per square foot, and the 1830 square foot condo begins at $649,900 or $355 per square foot.  The higher cost per square foot means that tiny space purchasers also will pay proportionately more real estate fees, education fees, house taxes and mortgage interest payments because all these fees are based on the cost of the housing, not square footage.  (See November 13,2015 post “Upside Down Finances re Housing for Singles and Low Income” – how is this any different than loan sharking or payday loans?)

Calgary Herald December 16, 2015 article “Nothing New from housing collective” (housing-affordability) (a study going on for 14 months) states:

’Mayor Naheed Nenshi says he’s unhappy with the city’s Community Housing Affordability Collective strategy, but hopeful  it’s members now understand the ‘time for talk is over.’

Talk, talk, talk, and study after study without action is just meaningless rhetoric.  In this so called democratic, civilized country all persons, whether they are immigrants or Canadian-born, single or married, male or female, low income or no income deserve the same financial dignity and respect such as being included in financial formulas.  All individuals deserve a living wage job and a place to  live in just like the rich and middle class families.

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

 

NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS (FINANCIAL) FOR SINGLES

Posted on by
Reply

stock-vector-creative-happy-new-year-design-vector-illustration-334950749

 

NEW YEAR’S RESOLUTIONS (FINANCIAL) FOR SINGLES

  1. I resolve to contact my members of government, policy and decision makers and educate them about the financial discrimination of singles.
  2. I resolve to question fees when married/coupled persons (adult to adult) are paying less person to person for two adults than for one adult. (Example:  gym memberships when married/coupled persons pay less per person than single persons.   It is recognized that children are expensive to raise and, therefore, fees for the children may be free.  However, it is financially discriminatory to charge a single adult and a divorced/separated adult with and without children more, adult to adult, than married/coupled adults.)
  3. I resolve to contact my members of government, policy and decision makers and insist that singles (ever) and divorced/separated individuals need to be included in financial formulas, not just married/coupled persons and widowers.

_________________________________________             _____________________

Name                                                                                                      Date

INHERITANCES-LOST DOLLARS FOR SINGLES

Posted on by
1

INHERITANCES – LOST DOLLARS FOR SINGLES

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

In the featured post of this blog ‘Six Reasons why Married/Coupled People are able to Achieve More Wealth than Singles’ (six-reasons),  the sixth reason states that married/coupled persons are able to achieve more wealth because they receive two inheritances, while singles receive only one.  (All  things being equal it is assumed that spouses will receive an inheritance from each side of the family).

Research suggests that the average Canadian inheritance is $100,000.  This does seem somewhat understated, especially since the average Canadian house is now worth $400,000 plus.

Thomas Piketty’s book “Capital in the Twenty-First Century” (Capital_in_the_Twenty-First_Century) describes how inherited wealth is growing at a much faster pace than economic growth leading to not just a highly unequal society, but to a society of oligarchy, to a society where inherited wealth will dominate, and patrimonial capitalism.

At the present time inherited wealth is outpacing economic growth because capital is tending to produce real returns of 4 to 5 percent while economic growth is much slower at a rate of 2 to 3 percent.

Inherited wealth for married/coupled persons will develop at a much faster pace than inherited wealth for single persons not only because of two inheritances, but also because the rate of return (rule of 72) (Rule_of_72) will also increase the total net worth for the two inheritances. The result is that low income and middle class singles will more likely have difficulty maintaining a decent income level throughout their working lives and into their retirement years in comparison to married/partnered persons.

Outside the Box Thinking

All things being equal, since singles are at a financial disadvantage (investment potential, costs more for singles to live, married/coupled persons receive more in benefits,etc.) in comparison to their married/coupled siblings, parents should think about dividing inheritance between their children so that the single child receives an additional 20%-25% of his/her share of the inheritance.  (added January 14, 2016)

LOST DOLLAR VALUE LIST

A value of $100,000 lost will be added to the list.  This is probably grossly understated since, first, inheritances are likely higher than $100,000, and second, the rule of 72 growth has not been added since it is not possible to calculate.  (However, using rule of 72, a rate of return of 3.5 per cent would double the original $100,000 in twenty years.)

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

 

MARITAL STATUS DOES NOT DEFINE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE

Posted on by
Reply

MARITAL STATUS DOES NOT DEFINE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE

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 four posts, financial discrimination of senior singles was discussed.  In addition, two reader letters and response to letters addressing assumptions of married people that singles can live with someone if they lack financial resources, and that financial problems of singles are because their lifestyles are too extravagant was discussed.

It is mind boggling as to why married/coupled people always seem to think that because they are married/coupled they have more financial intelligence and are able to manage their money better than single and divorced/separated persons.  They also almost can never put themselves into the financial shoes of single and divorced /separated persons.

Singles are one the fastest growing demographics in the country, yet they are left out of financial formulas and discussions.

leave it to beaver

WHEN OUR POLITICAL LEADERS MAKE IT SOUND LIKE THE FAMILY FROM ‘LEAVE IT TO BEAVER’ IS STILL THE CANADIAN NORM, THERE ARE CONSEQUENCES FOR THE REST OF THE COUNTRY, SAY SINGLE VOTERS (quote from example #3 article).

 

In this post, the issue of marital status not defining financial intelligence will be discussed by reviewing three examples.

Example #1 and #2 show married/coupled persons are not any better at managing money than single and divorced/separated persons.  Example #3 talks about financial misconceptions about singles.

(Financial profiles from the Financial Post are an interesting study in how persons perceive wealth.  Anyone can submit an email requesting a free family finance analysis.  It is interesting to note that most of the married/coupled requests for financial analysis are from relatively wealthy persons.  These same requests always are requesting financial help because of worry that they will not have enough money to live and retire.)

Example #1, a financial profile of a married couple is as follows:

Calgary Herald, December 12, 2015 Financial Post “Oil Crash Forces  Fix for Couple” – (this profile can be viewed in full online)

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.  Their income at the present time is $2,175 a month and is $3,240 less than their total monthly expenses of $5,415.  They say they need to know if they can survive.  The article does mention one child who 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 financial planner makes the statement:

“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.  If they follow the planner’s advice, they should have a before tax income of about $74,000 per year.  With splits of pension income and application of age and pension income splitting credits, they would pay 13 percent tax and have $5,345 a month or $64,140 annual income to spend.  Compare that to reader letter#2, December 12, 215 post that suggested singles with rent or mortgage expenses can live comfortably on a middle class income of $27,000 a year.

It is interesting to note  that their food budget for two people is $1,120 per month and expenses for entertainment are $220 per month.  The financial planner suggests they cut their food budget by $400 and their entertainment budget by $100 per month.

Simple logic without seeking financial planner advice would imply that in order to increase their income they could sell one rental property,  live on the proceeds, then sell the next rental property and live on those proceeds, and finally start taking income from their investments.  They would still have their residence as collateral.  With all their wealth this couple still feel they need to seek financial advice.

If one compares this example to the suggestion from the recent posts that singles can live on $27,000 per year and $200 a month for food, one wonders why this couple would have any financial worries with the wealth that they  have.  Also, reducing their food budget by $400 still allows them to  have a food budget of $350 per person.

Example #2 is taken from a published article “Beyond the Blue Line” by the Canadian Scholarship Trust (CST).

“The report showed that approximately 66 per cent of Canadian parents have, or know someone who has, borrowed money or used retirement savings to put their children through extracurricular activities.

In contrast, 48 percent of parents have invested in a Canadian RESP (Registered Education Savings Plan).

CST reported that 43 per cent of parents said they’d borrowed money on a credit card, line of credit, personal or family loan for extracurriculars like hockey. The remaining 23 per cent deferred their retirement or used their retirement savings for extracurriculars.

More than half of Canadian parents (57 percent) said they feel every child should have the chance to play hockey if they want to, ‘because it’s part of growing up in Canada,’ CST said. The percentage represents a drop of more than 10 per cent from last year, when 69 percent said all children should be able to play hockey.

Despite the high rate of borrowing for extracurriculars, nearly half of parents said they knew someone pulling their kids out due to the cost. Thirty per cent said they, or someone they knew, regret the amount of money spent on activities like sports.”

Parents will play financial roulette with their money even though there is less than one per cent chance of their children becoming professional hockey players.

Example #3

This example is taken from the National Post June 12, 2015, : “ They are one of Canada’s fastest growing demographics, so why are politicians ignoring the single voter?” by Claire Brownell,  (article is available online).

This article first talks about:

“Marcel Watier, a single 39 year old, who lives on his own in a rented basement apartment.  He earns a good salary, thanks to a full time job and a part-time job on the side.  He says people think he must be spending his money on stereotypical urban luxuries – dinners out, craft cocktails, a condominium with a pool and a rock-climbing wall – since he doesn’t have a partner or children.  ‘They just see a single guy working two jobs and think I must be rolling in money.  If I was rolling in money, would I be working two jobs?’

In addition to supporting himself, he helps his two sisters, who have eight children between them and a ninth on the way. (The article does not state why he has to do this.)

If those were his children and Walter were married, he would be eligible for a long list of tax breaks, benefits and programs.  As a single person, he’s on his own.  He states: It drives me up the wall to hear the whole ‘selfish single’ term.”

The word single is hardly ever used by politicians.

“The phrase ‘Canadian families’ has been spoken 5,669 times in the House of Commons since 1994″, according to OpenParliament.ca, with Conservatives (Party) accounting for almost half of those mentions.

If Canada’s singles were to get up tomorrow and decide it’s high time they stood up for themselves, they would form a formidable voting bloc.  Maybe it’s time to try.”

Conclusion

The above examples show that marital status does not define financial intelligence; rather it is the belief systems, moral values, and financial values instilled throughout lifetime that define how money will be spent and saved.

It is time that singles be included in financial formulas, not just families.  Instead of politicians promising things to only certain groups of citizens, they should be thinking about how to improve society as a whole.

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

SENIOR SINGLES PAY MORE – Part 4 of 4

Posted on by
3

RESPONSE TO LETTERS ON UNFAIR SINGLE SENIORS TAXATION

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

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

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

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

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

You say bizarre conclusions have been reached.  Let’s talk bizarre.  Re Allowance Program and Credits benefits, 2009 Policy Brief, “A Stronger Foundation-Pension Reform and Old Age Security” by Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives, page 4 policyalternatives.ca, states:

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

So what is happening?  Age eligibility for Allowance benefits will change from 60 to 62 beginning in 2023 with full implementation in 2029.  In this democratic, civilized country let’s just ignore federal court rulings and continue a $? million discriminatory program.  Article also suggests that:

‘OAS (Old Age Security) and GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement) combined should be increased to at least bring it up to after-tax LICO (Low Income Cut Off) for single individuals.’

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How nice!

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

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

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

 

SENIOR SINGLES PAY MORE – Part 3 of 4

Posted on by
2

SENIOR SINGLES PAY MORE – Part 3 of 4

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

(The following letters were published in a local newspaper and were in response to the two published articles by author on August 19, 2015 in same local newspaper. It is the policy of the author of this blog to not identify persons by name in most cases, so proper names have been removed from the articles).

OPINION LETTER FROM READER #1 PUBLISHED August 26, 2015 – CORRECT NUMBERS, BIZARRE CONCLUSIONS

“Lies, damned lies, statistics”.

This statement popularized by Mark Twain describes the use of numbers (i.e. statistics) to support weak or, as in the following example, totally erroneous arguments.

Last week’s opinion in the Cochrane Times is such a case of presenting correct numbers to jump to bizarre conclusions.

Her first item of ‘unfairness’ is the fact that single adults now have an annual $10,000 TFSA (Tax Free Savings Account) limit whereas those ‘wicked’ (i.e. taking advantage of such unfairness) people who have a partner together have $20,000. Is author suggesting that couple should only have one TFSA? And if so, which one should have it? Through misfortune or choice most currently in a partner situation end up alone eventually. Under the author’s proposal, hopefully you are the one with the TFSA.

Next, she jumps on the ‘horror’ of pension/income splitting only for couples. I am baffled how she proposes applying it to singles. Income splitting was designed to reduce the financial punishment of couples where one partner stayed home to raise kids. What is the problem with that? The CPP (Canada Pension Plan) or other pension splitting later in life rewards that earlier decision where generally one partner has the larger pension because the other one stayed home.

Then we come to the age credit. If there is an unused credit amount the ‘unfortunate’ single senior cannot transfer it. However, don’t forget that if you are a single senior and have excess age credit it means you are paying zero tax anyway. So what are you losing? Also, yes the age credit is ‘clawed back’ as one’s income gets larger. So what? People with larger income should pay tax. Someone has to contribute to pay your OAS (Old Age Security) and GIS (Guaranteed Income Supplement), etc. etc.

Then I read ‘a senior couple’ can earn $40,720 without paying income tax while a senior single can only earn $20,360 before paying any tax. So, two senior singles together have the same $40,720 limit. What’s to stop them from living in the same residence and sharing the living expenses? You can do that and still claim single status with CRA (Canada Revenue Agency). Other than rent, virtually all other expenses are per person, not per couple. Does she propose the limit to be $20,360 for a couple? There would be a stampede towards claiming ‘single’ status. It would be the end of marriage, either common-law or certificate status.

Note that it is possible for two people to claim either single or married status and still live in the same location. It has been done either way. The single status may need a bit of convincing with CRA but if you keep separate accounts, etc. it has been accepted. But be aware, there are benefits and disadvantages not just financial ones to either status. And you can’t jump back and forth each year.

The rest of the article goes on and on about the supposed inequities between singles and couples in income and net worth. Are we to blame the current or any particular government’s rules or is it lifestyle choices?

The author summarizes at the end by telling you the reader to vote for a party who does not ‘violate the human rights of the single person’. Good luck with that. No current party would consider such politically insane proposals. She’d have to form her own party and run for office. As it is, the current changes in tax rules for seniors, like larger TFSA, and smaller RRIF (Registered Retirement Income Accounts) withdrawals (deferring tax payable), are a definite improvement to many seniors, either single or couples.

OPINION LETTER FROM READER #2 PUBLISHED September 2, 2015 – FINANCIAL FAIRNESS DOESN’T WORK LIKE THAT

Dear author,

Reading your article last week, I was concerned by the assertions you made. While I am in no way opposed to benefits to seniors, be they single or otherwise, I found your statement that pension splitting and income splitting should not be permitted deeply troubling.

Of the current elderly generation, the vast majority of mothers were at least partially, stay-at-home moms, leaving with considerably smaller pensions and incomes than their spouses. Do you think that, upon retirement, they should have to live almost entirely off the husband’s savings and pension? Few people really have enough money to comfortably support two people in their retirement. But this was not the part of your article that I found most disturbing.

Of all that you said, the part that troubled me most was your assertion that raising children is not expensive enough to justify financial benefits and tax deductions. I assume from this that you are single yourself and have never experienced the costs of raising children. MoneySense.ca, the same website you sited for your data, averages the costs of raising a child to age 18 at $243,660. This amount may be reduced to approximately $180,000 if one of the parents chooses to stay at home with the kids rather than place them in daycare, but it is still a lot of money and one parent not working decreases the family’s annual income considerably.

So an average family with three children would spend $38,475 a year on their children. That sum can be radically increased if one of those children has special needs. If that family lived in a three- bedroom apartment in Calgary, they would be paying $2,400 per month, as opposed to the average $1,366 for one-bedroom apartment. Their rent would then $28,800 per year. They are spending $67,275 a year on just kids and a place to live. Those numbers are excluding the parent’s expenses such as utilities, insurance, phone bill, gas, and food which would total at approximately $17,000 if they had a dental plan with their work, bringing the expenses up to $84,275 a year.

If they are middle class, MoneySense says that the family’s annual income must be between $61,929 and $88,074. So basically, they must be at the upper end of middle class for their income to cover their annual expenses.

For a single person, living alone, they would be spending approximately $2,400 a month on food, $1,320 for transportation, $1,200 for clothing, $16,492 on rent, and up to $6,000 on miscellaneous expenses such as laundry, recreation and eating out. Total: $27,212. Earning $23,357 to $36,859 (middle class), a person would need to be near the middle of that spectrum to break even. And, if a single person cuts out some of the recreational activities and eating out, could break even at the lower end.

Living expenses are high and many people do struggle to some degree to make ends meet, but the solution is not to take away money from families who are struggling to support more people and give it to those who only have themselves to support.

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

SENIOR SINGLES PAY MORE – PART 2 OF 4

Posted on by
Reply

FINANCIAL FAIRNESS FOR SENIOR SINGLES NOT PART OF PLAN

(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).

This article was published in a local newspaper on August 19, 2015. The Conservative Party was in power federally at the time. In the October, 2015 federal elections the Conservatives were ousted by the Liberal Party. Proper names have been removed.)

In the midst of a Federal Election the financial rhetoric continues. The Conservative Member of Parliament, Wildrose, in his latest mailbox flyer, states that Conservatives have been committed to helping provide Canadian seniors with a secure and dignified retirement. The reality is that married/partnered people stand to gain much more from the Conservative Action Plan 2015 and other Conservative financial initiatives than individual/single seniors.

First, increases in the contribution limits of the TFSA account favors married/partnered people as the contribution limit per person is doubled. (The doubling of the TFSA was rescinded by the Liberals when they came into power in the October, 2015 federal election).

Second, pension splitting benefits applies only to married/couple people, not singles.

Third, the Age Credit benefits initiative increased by an amount of approximately $1,000. This benefit is incrementally reduced by 15% of net income exceeding approximately $35,000 and is eliminated when net income exceeds approximately $80,000. Any unused portion of the Age Credit can be transferred to the individual’s spouse or common-law partner. Comparable benefit of unused portion to individuals/singles without a spouse/common-law partner is zero.

Fourth, in the targeted tax relief benefits a senior couple can earn $40,720 without paying income tax (marital manna benefit), while a single senior can only earn $20,360 before paying income tax.

Fifth, Allowance for people ages 60 to 64 benefits are available to the spouses or common-law partners of GIS recipients. The spouse, age 60 to 64, of a senior with a single income of less than $31,584 may receive an allowance of $1,070.60 per month. This is an additional $12,000 per year. Furthermore, this benefit may also be available to immigrant married/coupled people who have been in the country for only ten years. Canadian-born and immigrant individuals/singles have nothing comparable to this benefit.

These are just a few of many more examples.

The following tables showing the income and net worth/wealth of unattached individuals versus families of two or more have been taken from MoneySense, The All-Canadian Wealth Test, January 2015 (moneysense) (based on Statistics Canada 2011 data)

____________________________________________________________________

INCOME TABLE

______________________________________________________________________________

INCOME

HOW DOES YOUR PAY STACK UP

_____________________________________________________________________

Quintiles                    Unattached Individuals        Families of Two or More

Bottom 20%                 $0 to $18,717                         $0 to $38,754

Lower-Middle 20%        $18,718 to $23,356                 $38,755 to $61,928

Middle 20%                  $23,357 to $36,859                 $61,929 to $88,074

Upper-Middle 20%         $36,860 to $55,498                $88,075 to $125,009

Highest 20%                 $55,499 and up                      $125,010 and up

______________________________________________________________________________

NET WORTH TABLE

____________________________________________________________________

NET WORTH

ARE YOU RICH?

______________________________________________________________________________

Quintiles                     Unattached Individuals        Families of Two or More

Bottom 20%                 Negative to $2,468                  Negative to $67,970

Lower-Middle 20%         $2,469 to $19,264                   $67,971 to $263,656

Middle 20%                   $19,265 to $128,087                $263,657 to $589,686

Upper-Middle 20%         $128,088 to $455,876              $589,687 to $1,139,488

Highest 20%                 $455,877 and over                   $1,139,489 and up

______________________________________________________________________________

An individual/single person who has an income of more than $55,000 is considered to be in the top 20% ‘wealthy’ category, but has great difficulty living a ‘wealthy’ lifestyle on $55,000 especially if they have a mortgage or need to pay rent in their senior years (meanwhile wealthy family income is $125,000 and up). Women between ages 45 and 64 earn on average $23,000 less than men.

What is even more revealing is the net worth of unattached individuals compared to families of two or more. The MoneySense article makes the following comments:

“The collective net worth of the lowest 40% of individuals wouldn’t match the poorest 20% of families. Families can build wealth faster than individuals because they can pool resources, which enables them to pay down debts faster and make larger purchases. And what a difference it makes: between ages 55 and 65, families are worth, on average, a whopping $670,000 more than unattached individuals in the same age group”.

 

(It should be noted that the net worth is probably even higher for families of two or more, since it appears that single parents with children are included in families of two or more statistics.  Single and divorced/separated parents of children, especially if younger in age, should excluded from families of two or more and placed into  their own category for more accurate statistics -added January 20, 2016).

It is always prudent to have more than one source for verification of facts, so here are another two.

The “Current State of Canadian Family Finances 2013-2014” report by the Vanier Institute of the Family vanierinstitute.ca states that

“between 1999 and 2012 the net worth of families advanced more than it did for unattached individuals”.

The 2009 “Report of the National Seniors Council on Low Income Among Seniors” (seniorscouncil) states that:

“between 1980 and 2006, the unattached have the highest incidence of low income of any group, with 15.5 percent of unattached seniors living below LICO in 2006, a rate 11 times higher than that of senior couples (1.4 per cent)”.

So how can married/coupled people continue to demand more financial benefits? How can governments continue to increase the financial means of married/coupled people at the expense of unattached individuals/singles? And, how expensive is it really to raise children when families can achieve so much more net worth than singles? Financial fairness requires balance and elimination of unfair benefits such as income/pension splitting and ability to transfer credits from one spouse to another.

The Conservative MP claims to “stand up for Canada’s seniors who have helped make Canada the strong and prosperous country it is today”. However, this holds true more for married/coupled people in Canada than it does for individuals/singles. In his flyer, the Conservative MP wants feedback on the question “Am I on the right track to deliver support to seniors?” For senior individuals/singles the answer is a resounding and unequivocal “NO”.

Individuals/singles need to stand up, speak out and make facts such as the above known to their members of Parliament, those with decision-making power, and families. Individuals/singles need to decide which political parties are detrimental to their financial health and vote for the party which best meets their financial needs in the Federal election. They need to demand financial sensibility and equality. Financial discrimination of one segment of the population over another is a blatant violation of human rights and civil rights.

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

SENIOR SINGLES PAY MORE -Part 1 of 4

Posted on by
2

SENIOR SINGLES PAY MORE – Part 1 of 4

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.

(The next four posts will consist of four parts. Parts 1 and 2 will be two published Opinion letters, Part 3 will be two Opinion letters published by readers in response to letter in Part 2. Part 4 will be author’s response to the two reader letters in Part 3.)

(This Opinion letter was published in a local newspaper on June 24, 2015. The Conservative party was ousted by the Liberal party in the October, 2015 election. Proper names have been removed. Since published letters are restricted to number of words that can be published, some additional information is added in italics to this article.)

In the June 17, 2015 edition of a local newspaper, a Conservative Member of Parliament states that the Conservatives remain committed to seniors through various measures they have implemented since 2006. This includes targeted tax relief where a single senior can now earn $20,360 and a senior couple $40,720 before paying federal income tax. He states that approximately 400,000 seniors (or 7 to 8% of total Canadian seniors) have been removed from the tax rolls altogether, (he neglects to state federal tax rolls only). This year, he says there is more good news for seniors by reducing the minimum withdrawal for RRIFs (Registered Retirement Income Funds) and introducing a new Home Accessibility Tax Credit (this neglects to recognize that not all seniors own homes).

The above so called tax relief benefit 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 maybe even a nice little vacation all tax free.

The BMO Retirement Institute Report-Retirement for One-By Chance or Design 2009 bmo.com/pdf and cifps.ca/Public/Media/PDF states the following:

‘the present tax system is set up to give a huge advantage to married/coupled people with singles who were never married or were divorced at some point throughout their entire working career usually subsidizing married/coupled people’. (It is interesting to note that this statement in the original article appears to have been removed and is no longer present in URL shown above).

From Russell Investments ‘Spending Patterns in Retirement’, February 2010 russell.com it is stated that:

‘government transfers, such as CPP and OAS are generally not sufficient to cover the Essentials of Retirement-less than 70% coverage for the average retiree, and as a little as 30% for higher-income retirees. This problem is magnified for single retirees. For example, in the $35,000-$60,000 income category, couples spend only about 12% more than singles on essentials (i.e. food, housing, and clothing), yet receive about 80% more in government transfers’.

The senior population includes about 13% of ‘ever’ single seniors (never married, divorced or widowed) and divorced single seniors (the younger persons are when divorced, the more likely they are to be poor as seniors) and about 43% widowers, (who receive marital manna benefits like pension splitting while married and survivor pension benefits). It is a well-documented fact that singles require 60 to 70% income of married/coupled people depending on whether they rent or own a home with 70% likely being the more accurate figure (Moneysense, BMO Retirement Institute Report-Retirement for One-By Chance or Design, etc.).

So how does the Conservative tax relief program for seniors help ever-single seniors? It doesn’t. Instead, with the addition of marital manna benefits such as pension splitting and survivor benefits, individuals/singles are financially made to be not even 50% worthy of total married/coupled tax relief, but rather less than 50% of married/coupled tax relief. And immigrant families are also financially made to be more income worthy than Canadian-born and immigrant senior individuals/singles.

Governments, businesses and society all talk about ‘family, family, family’, but singles continue to be ‘kicked out’ or deemed ‘less worthy’ than married/coupled people in the ‘family’. The Conservative Prime Minister, Finance Minister, and Members of Parliament remain financially illiterate in individual/singles financial affairs.

The continued financial discrimination of singles must be eliminated by recognizing what it truly costs for ever-singles and divorced/separated senior singles to live in this country. If programs such as pension splitting for married/coupled seniors and survivor benefits for widows continue to be added, then at the same time, ever-single and divorced single seniors must be given equal financial status through enhanced programs such as GIS and 60-70% enhancement of singles’ income baselines over married/coupled person’s and widow baselines. Sixty per cent of couples’ tax relief $40,720 income equals $24,432 ($2,036 per month) and 70% of $40,720 equals $28,504 ($2,375 per month).

The Conservative Member of Parliament’s article is titled ‘Seniors play an increasingly important role in our society’. Unfortunately, married/coupled and widowed seniors are deemed to play a more financially important role than ever-singles or divorced/separated early in life singles even though singles have supported married/coupled and widowed persons throughout their lifetime through contributions by paying more taxes and getting less in benefits.

The senior population of Canada includes only about 13% of singles and divorced/separated persons, while widows comprise 43% of the senior population. If the marital manna benefits were taken away from the widowed persons (who by the way could now be considered to be living a ‘single’ lifestyle since they are now technically ‘single’) they would be on a more equal instead of a greater financial footing to ever singles and divorced/separated persons. Or, if looked at from another perspective since ever singles and divorced/separated persons comprise only 13% of the senior population, would it really cost that much more to give them the same financial benefits as widows? As citizens of this country senior ever singles and divorced/separated persons deserve and should be treated with same financial respect as widowed seniors.

To continue the common sense and critical thinking of this article, a simple rephrasing of the information is as follows:  Governments need to top up tax free amount for ‘ever’ singles and early divorced/separated senior persons to from $20,0000 to $28,000 (70% of $40,000) plus give to ‘ever’ singles and early divorced/separated persons 70% of whatever benefits are given to widowed persons.  To do nothing or less than this only continues the financial discrimination already been committed against ‘ever’ singles and divorced/separated persons.

LOST DOLLARS LIST’

Since it costs ‘ever’ single and divorced/separated seniors with rent or mortgage about 70% – 75% of married/couple seniors’ income, lost dollars of 70% for $20,000 extra that married/coupled seniors get tax free or $6,000 per year (age 65 to 90) will be added to the list.  Total value of dollars lost will be $150,000 ($6,000 times 25 for years age 65 to 90).

 

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.