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.

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.

FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES MUST END

Posted on November 26, 2015 by ffswpadmin

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

FINANCIAL DISCRIMINATION OF SINGLES MUST END

(This article was originally published in a local newspaper prior to the May 5, 2015 Alberta provincial election. The ruling Progressive Conservative Party had been in power for over forty years and was ousted by the New Democratic Party on May 5, 2015)

So it is election time again. And Premier Prentice has outlined a ten year budget plan for which he is seeking voter approval. He has repeatedly stated that in order to maintain the Alberta Advantage there will be a small 1% increase in the provincial flat tax rate and no increases in corporate taxes.

Also, with one hand the PCs will be taking away an additional 1% flat tax from all Albertans and with the other hand giving tax breaks back to only Alberta working families (new supplement for families with income under $41,220 and increase of the family employment tax credit by $346-$736 per year). Individuals have been excluded from the family manna benefits. The Federal PCs have also given additional benefits to families including income splitting even though this has been shown repeatedly over and over again to benefit high-income families the most while excluding low-income, equal-income families and individuals with and without children.

In his handout, “The Prentice Plan – Choose Alberta’s Future” Prentice talks about building a future for all Albertans, but only speaks to Alberta’s working families.

(Preference here is given to the word ‘individual’ rather than ‘single’ as the word ‘single’ implies negativity simply because the societal perception is that if he/she has not yet achieved the Nirvana state of being married/partnered/widowed/divorced/separated, he/she is less of a whole person).

Individuals/singles are never mentioned in the financial formulas or political statements. In fact, they are given ‘non person’ status. Surely Nellie McClung must be turning in her grave.

Young individuals not yet married/partnered today are faced with the grim prospects of high student loan debt, low wages when starting their employment, and paying more taxes than families.

Just one example of gross financial discrimination of individuals is where individuals are forced to overpay three times for pensions. One, they pay more taxes while contributing to pension plans; two, they are forced to support the survivor manna benefits which coupled/partnered people have not paid more for; and three, on retirement they pay more taxes than coupled/partnered people, plus get less pension because they can’t pension split. The mantra for individuals is pay more, get less, pay more, get less, and pay more, get less.

Regarding the status of individuals (especially ever singles) it is a well-established fact that individuals on their own who do not own a house require 70 to 75% of a married/partnered income to maintain a reasonable standard of living. If they own a house, then 60% to 65% of a married/partnered income is required.

It stands to reason the basic personal exemptions for individuals should be at least 60% to 70% of the combined personal exemptions for a couple.

In a stunning, eye-opening report “The Alberta Disadvantage: Gender, Taxation and Income Inequality http://www.parklandinstitute.ca/the_alberta_disadvantage by Kathleen A. Lahey soundly chastises the Alberta flat tax system for:

‘especially adversely affecting women, shifting disproportionate amounts of the provincial annual tax share to women and low income men in order to fund breaks for corporations and high income individuals’. Furthermore, ‘racialization and aboriginal heritage form further barriers to economic equality.’

Could we, please, also add financial discrimination of singles?

Alberta’s Liberals have stated gender inequality needs to change, but don’t say how change will be achieved.

And apparently Prentice prefers the recommendations of the Fraser Institute on the flat tax system.

If one carefully reviews the recommendations for a flat tax system (Alvin Rabushka and Niels Veldhuis) fraserinstitute.org/studies/-the-case-for-flat-tax-reform versus a progressive tax system (Lahey), both systems call for fairness and equity and elimination of most tax credits, deductions, exemptions and benefits; in other words

“repeal the transferability of the large dependent spouse/partner tax exemption credits and all other transferable exemption credits”.

Both systems have a personal allowance or exemption-an amount all individuals are allowed to earn tax free. Both systems state that present tax systems fail to ensure that individuals and households with similar incomes face similar tax burdens. Proponents of each system state there would be more than enough revenue generated to support infrastructure and government programs. Inequalities would be addressed with changes only to the basic personal exemption with no further tax exemptions or benefits required.

Lahey states that Alberta must enforce women’s rights and the Alberta Human Rights Account to achieve genuine economic equality. She also advocates for a living wage and subsidized, registered childcare and elder care programs. (Lahey’s entire report should be required reading for all politicians, think tank persons and those who believe basic human rights are not being violated by present tax systems, Canadian or provincial).

In our so called civilized country and province which political party (far right, far left or middle of the road as Prentice states he is) will step up to the plate and ensure financial equality and respect for all Canadians and Albertans based on gender equality, and without regard to marital status and family composition, not just high-income families?

Get out and vote! Individuals and singles of all ages, talk to your Member of Parliament about financial discrimination of singles!

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.

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

Posted on November 21, 2015 by ffswpadmin

UPSIDE DOWN FINANCES RE HOUSING FOR SINGLES AND LOW INCOME- PART 3 of 3 LOST DOLLAR VALUE LIST AND PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT

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.

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

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

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

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

As stated in a recent real estate article, Watermark, a deluxe complex in Calgary is selling an ‘inspired’ (so stated in article) 8,644 sq. ft. estate home and its guest house for $3.45 million or $399 per square foot which is less per square feet than 600 square foot condo mentioned above. Article goes on to say that beyond homes, Watermark garners interest with both natural and man-made beauty. It has 17 cascading ponds and more than five kilometers of interconnected walking and bike trails. Then there’s the central plaza with its 1,000 sq. ft. pavilion, kitchen, barbecues, a sports field and NBA-sized basketball court. One family’s daughter is looking forward to booking the plaza and using the outdoor kitchen for her birthday party. The family goes on to state that space between homes and low density was also very important so they weren’t looking into someone’s back yard. This same complex has a show home with 17 sinks.

Another real estate article talks about another family with three children moving from 1900 sq. ft. house to a 2,837 sq. ft. house with price starting from $900,000s. They are moving because they need more room for the kids as they grow. Their new house will provide 567 sq. ft. per person at a starting price of approximately $317 per sq. ft. Yet again other articles state that owners are happy they don’t have condos in their back yard and their children can experience nature from their own bedrooms.

Further advice usually given by married people states singles can live with someone else if they can’t afford housing 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 dignity and respect for singles (and low income families). Attainable Housing http://www.attainyourhome.com/, 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 livingwagecanada allows singles dignity of one bedroom apartment and a living wage income that is 44% of a family of 4 income and 62% of a family of two (parent and child).

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 and 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.

LOST DOLLARS VALUE LIST

For a 700 square foot condo where price is $50 more per square foot than lowest price of largest condo in complex, it can be assumed that the purchaser will be paying $35,000 more than purchaser’s base price of largest condo, if the price per square foot is $100 more per square foot then purchaser will be paying be paying $70,000 more, if the price per square foot is $150 more per square foot then purchaser will be paying $105,000 more and so on. The amount of house and education taxes, real estate fees and mortgage interest will also incrementally increase.

Our Lost Dollar Value List is still a work in progress, but when lost dollar value for real estate is added to the list, $50 will be used as the example as well as gestimate loss for taxes and real estate fees, interest charges based on $50.00 per sq. ft.

PSYCHOLOGICAL IMPACT

There seems to be very little understanding of the psychological impact that decision makers and policy makers have on singles regarding housing.

Many families live in houses where their young children have separate bedrooms, and likewise, there is a trend towards ‘man caves’ and ‘she sheds’ so family members can have ‘alone’ time, but when children become single adults, singles are consistently told that they can live with someone if they have financial problems with housing while paying more.

And, of course, singles never have claustrophobia, so it is okay to stick them in small spaces for which they have to pay more. And singles never have problems with noise, so it is okay for them to live in small units in less desirable areas close to airports and railway tracks, etc. (As one single person moving from one unit to another stated in a real estate article “I was very impressed with the pricing and the fact that they’re doing concrete floors and walls “. Concrete is said to restrict noise. “I work on Saturday mornings and a lot of people like to stay up a little later on Friday and Saturday nights”. With thinner walls, he adds, it is easier to hear “people in the hallways coming and going. It is not the end of the end of the world, by any means, but I am looking forward to something quieter above and below”. But for this person, the decision was less about sound and more about getting something larger, with better specifications and closer to work-moving from 615 sq. ft. two bedroom condo to 715 sq. ft. two bedroom condo. “The bedrooms are a little bit bigger with an ensuite. I really liked that and I liked the fact that it has a washer and dryer so I don’t have to go to the laundromat.”

Singles deserve same standard of living as married/coupled persons, i.e. having washer and dryer in their own home instead of having to go down a dark hall or to basement to do laundry or paying per load at a laundromat.

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 creating memories for their children, entertaining and maintaining close ties to friends and families, but apparently adult singles don’t have friends and families, so it is okay for them to live in micro condos, some as small as 200 square feet, where it is pretty much impossible to entertain or have friends and families stay with them.

SOLUTION

Singles and low income persons need to become more aware of financial unfairness by taking pricing down to the lowest common denominator, i.e. price per square foot and speak out about the financial atrocities being directed towards them. They need to start questioning why they are being targeted to pay more while getting less. (While it is recognized that it is expensive to raise children, adult to adult it is also unfair to make one segment of the population like singles and the disadvantaged pay more than another segment).

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

UPSIDE DOWN FINANCES RE HOUSING FOR SINGLES AND LOW INCOME – PART 2 OF 3

Posted on November 19, 2015 by ffswpadmin

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

UPSIDE DOWN FINANCES RE HOUSING FOR SINGLES AND LOW INCOME-PART 2 OUTSIDE THE BOX SOLUTIONS FOR PRICING OF HOUSING

Part 1 of this series of three articles showed how singles and low income families buying the smallest units in the housing market are forced to pay more for less space while the rich are getting much more while paying less.

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

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

One could question how this is any different than gouging like loan-sharking, and pay-day loans rather than the welfare of singles and low income.

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 with no 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 and neighbors continue to have a “not in my backyard” mentality.

Regardless of the above proposed solutions, outside the box thinking is required for affordable housing. How about the following suggestions?

OUTSIDE THE BOX SOLUTIONS FOR PRICING OF AFFORDABLE HOUSING

Solution 1 – for a housing complex as identified in the above outrageous pricing example, prices should be set where the base price of the unit with the smallest square footage cannot be more than the base price of the unit with largest square footage within the complex. Any changes and upgrades by the buyer would be added to the base price. (In the above example the base price of the 552 square foot condo could only be $355 per square foot to match the cheapest price of the biggest per square foot unit in the complex.

Solution 2 – Charges for house taxes, education taxes, and real estate fees should be based on square footage, not the price of the housing unit. This would provide fairness where fees are based on largest unit and become proportionately less on smaller units. (Added January 7, 2016)

Solution 3– charge a fee such as a carbon tax fee for units greater than a certain number of square feet. For example, allow a maximum size of 2500 square ft. for a housing unit (assumption is that there is no need for excessive amounts of square footage in housing). For anything greater than 2500 square feet, charge an extra fee to the buyer with an incremental increase in the fee for every additional 500 square feet of space. (The rich have been paying less and getting more square footage while using non-renewable resources plus water at an alarming rate, i.e. 5000 square foot log cabin using twelve logging trucks filled with harvested logs and a showhome that has seventeen sinks). The monies collected from these fees could be used to build more affordable housing.

The following are excerpts from two published articles:

MoneySense, Sept./Oct., 2015, page 17 ‘Two ways to cool white-hot home prices’ (ABBREVIATED VERSION) (moneysense.ca)

“Concern should not be for how much houses cost, but how out of reach home ownership has become for Canadians….Developers motivated by profit have built mostly smaller one and two bedroom condo units…There is also rapidly increasing rental rates due to a scarcity of new rental units….One solution-taxing housing, not income. We don’t currently pay tax on the profit earned from the sale of our primary residence. We do, however, pay progressive tax on the income we earn. Thomas Davidoff, economics professor at Sauder University, uses himself as an example and selling a house in Vancouver for a large profit. ‘I was wrong about the prices, wrong about the future value, and I was still rewarded for my dumb luck’. He compares this to his professional life, where he spent the better part of 10 years completing a bachelor, master’s degree and PhD. Today, he pays the government $0.42 in tax for every dollar he earns. ‘Getting my PhD damn near killed me. Why is my dumb luck rewarded but my hard work penalized?’….He suggests the federal government tax capital gains made on the sale of a property. The tax could also be progressive. More important is what a new tax structure would do to affordability. By taxing property profits, you reduce the number of speculators and real estate investors who help to inflate housing profits. This would be politically challenging, since homeowners are a politician’s biggest voting block….Still, those elected to political office need to take initiative—and put housing affordability for the many before the political aspirations of a few. To do nothing would mean we accept that $1 million for an average home is the new norm in Canada”.

Calgary Herald, September 12, 2015, page F3, ‘Builders frame up the coming year’ (calgaryherald):

“Canadian Home Builder’s Association- Tally Hutchinson, president ‘Our message on affordability is being heard. We still believe there are some large issues on the table that need to be ironed out. One being inclusionary zoning’….This zoning would require the private sector to construct and sell a percentage of units within a development at a pre-determined percentage, below market price….’The issue we have with inclusionary zoning is that it transfers that broader societal obligation of subsidized housing onto a small group of homeowners. We believe these costs should be shared by all members of a community, not just those who are buying new homes for condos. It still is a large issue on the table that needs to be ironed out’.”

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

TFSA BOONDOGGLE FOR SINGLES AND LOW-INCOME CANADIANS

Posted on November 8, 2015 by ffswpadmin

TFSA BOONDOGGLE FOR SINGLES AND LOW -INCOME CANADIANS

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

TFSA MAXIMUM CONTRIBUTIONS PER YEAR FOR MARRIED/PARTNERED VERSUS SINGLES

NOTE: Does not include potential compounded interest/investment income

TFSA TOTAL Married/Partnered Individual/Single

Year 5 $ 55,000 $ 27,500

Year 10 $110,000 $ 55,000

Year 15 $165,000 $ 82,500

Year 20 $220,000 $110,000

Year 25 $275,000 $137,500

Year 30 $330,000 $165,000

Year 35 $385,000 $192,500

Year 40 $440,000 $220,000

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Lost Dollars Value List

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

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

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