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.
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.
