MARITAL STATUS DOES NOT DEFINE FINANCIAL INTELLIGENCE

Posted on December 24, 2015 by ffswpadmin

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.

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 December 22, 2015 by ffswpadmin

RESPONSE TO LETTERS ON UNFAIR SINGLE SENIORS TAXATION

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

How nice!

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

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

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

SENIOR SINGLES PAY MORE – PART 2 OF 4

Posted on December 9, 2015 by ffswpadmin

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.)

FALSE ASSUMPTIONS- ‘FOUR WAYS SINGLE SENIORS LOSE OUT’

Posted on December 2, 2015 by ffswpadmin

FALSE ASSUMPTIONS OF ARTICLE ‘FOUR WAYS SINGLE SENIORS LOSE OUT’

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.

(On searching internet a few days ago this article was found – ‘Four ways single seniors lose out’ by Ted Rechtshaffen, Financial Post October 13, 2012. While the intentions of the article are great, the assumptions and categorization of singles is false.)

In his October 13, 2012 article Ted Rechtshaffen (four-ways-single-seniors-lose-out) talks about four ways that single seniors financially lose out. Portions of the article are outlined in part here (full article is available online):

Rechtshaffen states:

“Being part of a couple in old age has so many tax advantages that losing a spouse through divorce or death can be very costly. Given the fact that so many more single seniors are female, this unfairness is almost an added tax on women. Becoming single in old age could cost you tens of thousands of dollars through no fault of your own. The current tax and pension system in Canada is significantly tilted to benefit couples over singles once you are age 65 or more….

Here are four ways that single seniors lose out:

1. There is no one to split income with. Since the rules changed to allow for income splitting of almost all income for those aged 65 or older, it has meaningfully lowered tax rates for some…If you are single, you are stuck with the higher tax bill.

2. CPP (Canadian Pension Plan) haircut… If one passes away, the government doesn’t pay out more than the maximum for CPP to the surviving spouse. They will top up someone’s CPP if it is below the maximum, but in this case, they simply lose out almost $12,000 a year.

3. RSP/RIF (Retirement Savings Plan/Retirement Income Fund) gets folded into one account. This becomes important as you get older and a larger amount of money is withdrawn by a single person each year — and taxed on income…her tax bill will be much larger… than the combined tax bill the year before, even though they have essentially the same assets, and roughly the same income is withdrawn.

4. Old Age Security (OAS). The married couple with $50,000 of income each, both qualify for full Old Age Security —… If the husband passes away, you lose his OAS, about $6,500. On top of that, in the example in #3, the wife now has a minimum RIF income…and combined with CPP and any other income, she is now getting OAS clawed back.

The clawback starts at $69,562, and the OAS declines by 15¢ for every $1 of income beyond $69,562. If we assume that the widow now has an income of $80,000, her OAS will be cut to $414.50 a month or another $1,500 annual hit simply because she is now single. In total, almost $8,000 of Old Age Security has now disappeared. As you can see, a couple’s net after-tax income can drop as much as $25,000 after one becomes single.

On the other side, there is no question that expenses will decline being one person instead of two, but the expenses don’t drop in half. We usually see a decline of about 15% to 30%, because items like housing and utilities usually don’t change much, and many other expenses only see small declines.

In one analysis our company did comparing the ultimate estate size of a couple who both pass away at age 90, as compared to one where one of them passes away at age 70 and the other lives to 90, the estate size was over $500,000 larger when both lived to age 90 – even with higher expenses.

So the question becomes, what can you do about this?

I have three suggestions:

1. Write a letter to your MP along with this article, and demand that the tax system be made more fair for single seniors. You may also want to send a letter to Status of Women Minister…as this issue clearly affects women more than men.

2. Look at having permanent life insurance on both members of a couple to compensate for the gaps. Many people have life insurance that they drop after a certain age. The life insurance option certainly isn’t a necessity, but can be a solution that provides a better return on investment than many alternatives and covers off this gap well. If you have sufficient wealth that you will be leaving a meaningful estate anyway, this usually will grow the overall estate value as compared to not having the insurance — and not hurt your standard of living in any way.

3. Consider a common law relationship for tax purposes. I am only half joking. If two single seniors get together and write a pre-nuptial agreement to protect assets in the case of a separation or death, you can both benefit from the tax savings.

Ultimately, the status quo is simply unfair to single seniors, and that needs to change.”

Ted Rechtshaffen is president and wealth advisor at TriDelta Financial, a boutique wealth management and planning firm. www.tridelta.ca

The first thing that is so wrong with this article is the definition of single versus married/partnered in marital status. The senior persons mentioned in this article are not single. According to Statistics Canada definitions, they are widowed or divorced/separated (after age 65). Persons who are true and ever singles have none of the financial benefits/losses mentioned in this article. And if persons are divorced/separated, especially at an early stage of their marriage, they also do not have many of the benefits/losses mentioned here. (The earlier the divorce/separation in life, the greater is the loss of benefits that married/coupled persons enjoy).

Being part of a couple in old age has so many tax advantages…How true!
The current tax and pension system in Canada is significantly tilted to benefit couples over singles once you are age 65 or more….This statement is not completely true. The system is even more unfair for singles who are true (‘ever’) singles, not widows. Singles who are true singles have been excluded from the discussion.
Benefits – Article correctly states that pension splitting, CPP, RSP/RIF and OAS are benefits to married people because the couple receives these benefits times two and is able to pension split, but widowed persons have less of these benefits. To this, true singles and early divorced/separated persons ask the question, “so what”? If widowed persons are now so called ‘single’ they should have to live same standard of living, not better than, true singles and early divorced/separated persons.
Losses – Losses are correctly stated, however, true (‘ever’) singles and early divorced/separated persons have a hard time understanding why this is a hardship. Widowers are now ‘single’ so why can’t they live the same lifestyle as true singles and early divorced/separated persons?
Higher tax bill – Why is this a problem? Widowed persons are now on more equal playing field to true single and early divorced/separated persons.
Clawback – Again why is this a problem? True singles and early divorced/separated persons enjoy none of these benefits. Also, many true (ever) singles and early divorced/separated Canadian persons do not have the luxury of a $70,000 income.

Estate size $500,000 less
– Just more proof that married/coupled persons want it all and want more, more and more from the time of marriage until the death of their spouse/partner and even after the death of their spouse/partner. In article ‘The Added Price of Single Life?’ by Bella Depaulo (belladepaulo) talks about a A British study that showed true singles lose equivalent of $380,000 USA over a lifetime to married persons, so what is the problem with losing $500,000? Another good article is ‘The high price of being single in America’ theatlantic.com.

The article then goes on to make these enlightening points:

“There is no question that expenses will decline being one person instead of two, but the expenses don’t drop in half. We usually see a decline of about 15% to 30%, because items like housing and utilities usually don’t change much, and many other expenses only see small declines“.

It would be exceedingly wonderful if government, businesses, society and families (married/partnered) would recognize this fact for true singles and early divorced/separated persons instead of telling them “it must be their lifestyle” that is making them poor. Fifteen to 30 percent decline? Wow, singles would love these percentages to also be used for them especially since 60 to 70% income of married or partnered persons is often used (i.e. MoneySense articles). If only true singles and early divorced persons could say they should have the same benefits as widowed persons, that is, 70 to 85% income of married or partnered persons.

Unfair to single seniors? The most unfairness is to true singles and divorced/separated persons, not widows.

Regarding the suggestions that are made:

“Write your MP and demand that tax system be made more fair for single seniors”. The article refers only to married/coupled and divorced/separated seniors after the age of 65. It dis criminates by exclusion against true singles and early divorced/separated persons.

“Look at having permanent life insurance on both members of a couple to compensate for the gaps”. This is a great idea. The author of this blog has long thought this would be a solution to providing benefits to survivors once spouses have died and they would actually be paying for those benefits through premiums. At the present time, survivors are getting marital manna benefits, but then are asking for more as this article suggests. They are also getting survivors benefits from pension plans and paying very little for these benefits. An example is a pension plan where only $100 is deducted each month from living spouse for pension benefits in the thousand dollar range. Deduction of $100 per month or $1200 per year does not pay for survivor pension that is two-thirds of full pension of the spouse. Life insurance plans at present time do not extend to 90 years of age without excessive premiums. To stop all the marital manna benefits that survivors get, life insurance plans need to be extended to 90 years of age, and spouses need to pay premiums for entire life. Another critical thinking, outside the box idea is to eliminate marital manna benefits and make permanent term life insurance plans compulsory, just like house and car insurance, so that married/coupled persons would actually pay for the benefits they receive. This methodology would allow true singles and early divorced/separated persons to be on more level financial playing field to married/coupled persons since generally true singles do not need life insurance. A longer term for collecting premiums should help to offset the costs of the premiums that will be paid out. Permanent life insurance would ease burden that married/partnered benefits place on government programs. There also would then be more monies to bring government programs for true singles and early divorced/separated persons to have same standard of living as married/coupled and widowed persons.

Consider a common law relationship for tax purposes. He says he is only half kidding. Really? According to Canada Revenue Agency rules this is not legal. Ever singles and divorced/separated persons cannot just shack up with someone for tax purposes. More true singles and early divorced/separated persons would be doing this if they could.

Lessons learned

Writers who wish to write about the financial affairs of singles should use correct definitions for singles. The persons in this article were not true singles. In other words, correctly identify who your audience is.
Writers of financial institutions who wish to write about the financial affair of singles should include all singles in their discussions. To do anything less is discriminatory and disrespectful to singles who truly are single.
By all means vote and contact your Members of Parliament, but insist that true singles and early divorced/separated persons (senior and otherwise) be included in financial discussions and formulas equal to and at the same level as widows and middle class families. (Seventy to 85% income of married/coupled persons would be wonderful).

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.

Visitor questions regarding blog. This is a WordPress blog designed by a hired individual.