View Single Post
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 08-25-2017, 01:48 PM
1ati2de 1ati2de is offline
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road

Originally Posted by Soiled View Post
While I won't disagree that there's changes that should happen, your points are easily picked apart with a quick glance, and if you were to want to move forward in any sort of way with the hope of making changes, you would need to work on them, a lot.

What then determines who gets the house? Joint savings account? The couch a couple split the costs on? The list goes on.
5. NO joint financial endeavours shall be permitted without mutual documentation (No joint bank accounts either IMO). A house will start at 50/50 and be altered accordingly to one’s income, might be a 60-40 split or what works. If one individual purchases a property to reside then that party owns 100%, no splitting or payments shall be made to the other party. Other arrangements can be made at a later date but needs to be documented and signed.

What defines a reasonable rate? What's reasonable for a person on social assistance is different from that of a person making minimum wage, which is in turn different from a person on Salary making $50k/yr, or $100k/yr, and so on.
Exactly, it would have to be evaluated on what a child needs to survive and live a comfortable life. A salary at 30k/y might be $300/M and $150/y might be $1500/M and all children would receive an equal amount. This is if 50/50 custody is unrealistic.

From a selfish standpoint, I'm inclined to agree. However for an example of why this isn't cut and dry either, I'm military, we get a lovely defined benefits pension from the federal government if we put enough time in. If I have a civilian wife who chooses to marry me, she's going in with the understanding that she's moving across the country every 3-5 years, and will not be able to establish herself well in a career. If we split later on, would she not have sacrificed and enabled me to get that pension? Why wouldn't she?
I understand this point however the system almost makes it out to be that the breadwinner is at a disadvantage period. If she makes a sacrifice and she decides to be with you and it don't work out why do you need to pay anything? This is a choice people make and that's it. Same idea if two people are late going to an event and the driver gets stopped for speeding, is the passenger going to pay half the ticket and the difference in insurance costs till its over?

Sounds like a well intentioned plan, but incredibly expensive from the taxpayer point of view. Statscan shows 5.8million kids in Canada 14 and under. Some of that is over daycare age, so very unscientifically we will reduce that to 4million. I've never seen a daycare that charges less than $30 a day. I would roughly guess your plan would cost in excess of $31 billion per year (4mill kids x $30 x 52weeks x 5 days per week) And that's assuming the government could run daycare as efficiently and as well as the private sector..
True but this would help in equality in a relationship and the billions wasted in family court systems across the country would be brought to a minimum if government stayed out of peoples personal lives. Pretty much everything we do is at our discretion, choices, freedom of speech, day to day interaction. Laws govern us to set standards yet they make people pay for other people to live their lives after marriage???
Reply With Quote