Showing posts with label bureaucratic harassment. Show all posts
Showing posts with label bureaucratic harassment. Show all posts

Sunday, March 11, 2018

The Ontario Disability Support Program Nailed. Again. Louis Shalako.




Louis Shalako


Ontario Disability Support Program                                           Mar 12/18
150 N. Christina St.
Sarnia, Ontario
N7T 8H4

Attn. Angela Adam


Dear Angela;


Thank you for Brooke Ronan's recent decision on income support.

I hereby request an internal review of this decision.

How do you do the math? Based on information you provided, the first monthly income charge is in the amount of $0.00, based on income of $467.00 less expenses, in other words, less the ($100.00 'automatic business deduction' expenses of $1200.00 divided by twelve months). So, that all totals up to zero.

The second monthly income charge is in the amount of $69.58 up until December 31/17.

“This income charge is based on your gross income of $6648.48 less expenses of $5813.50 divided by twelve months.”

So, twelve months times $69.58 equals $834.96.  The rate of claw-back is fifty percent, i.e., fifty cents on the dollar of income.

Yet you have accepted my gross income. You have accepted my allowable deductions, including phone, internet, purchase for business and professional equipment, mileage, etc. If we subtract $5813.50 from $6648.48, we get a figure of $834.98. That, at the very least, is a dollar-for-dollar claw-back. $834.98 is $1,565.02 below the $2,400.00 maximum earnings level for clients of the ODSP. That’s because you add it all together, in spite of former worker Shanno Bolton requiring me to submit two sets of books, basically just one more instance of bureaucratic harassment.

The work-related benefit is a benefit, not an ‘automatic business expense deduction’ as outlined in the guidelines. It can't be taken away, which is the reason why you are saying I will continue to receive it.

It is true, that I put one phone bill on Shalako Publishing’s books.

It makes no difference in terms of the accounting, but I would appreciate it if you would apply that to Mike’s Labour. Perhaps this will make a difference, considering how you guys do the math.

You also tried to pull this stunt on my last year.

Editor's Note. Even if they were half right, (which they ain't) the claw-back could not possibly exceed $417.49. It would still be bullshit, but it proves just how bogus their math is.

END




Thank you for reading.