Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > General Chat

General Chat This forum is for discussing anything that doesn't fit into another forum, or for discussing things that are off topic, or just for general venting.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #111 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2017, 11:03 PM
CoolGuy41's Avatar
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2017
Posts: 23
CoolGuy41 is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Pay to play. You didn't pay your ex a wage while you were married.
I didn't pay ex a wage while we were married because that would be (overt) prostitution. I stated prostitution is your view of what marriage should be, not mine.

Quote:
My mind goes to dowry business which is still very much alive in some cultures.
Dowry is monies paid from the bride's family to that of the groom. That is the opposite of what typically happens in Canada.

Quote:
In olden days if a husband screwed around on the wife he would have the crap beaten out of him and then watched very carefully by the wife's family - not many left those marriages. At least in our society we can leave an unhappy marriage.
And in Canada if husband displeases the wife he can legally be murdered:
[LINK]http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/justice-system-scrutinized-woman-hires-hitman-but-goes-free-1.2079731[/LINK]

Yea, I don't know if everyone realizes this but contracted murder of your ex-husband is now legal in Canada. It has been sanctioned by the highest court in the country.

Quote:
If you are in business and you and your partner decide to end the business you divide assets. Same with a marriage. Some partnerships are made with one partner who provides finances and the other partner performs the work. I don't think marriages are much different.
Sure; you can make the business analogy. Suppose me and my business partner are splitting up. I happen to be the woman. O wait a minute. I have a claim for a bunch of work. I do not have any time cards or nothing but I estimate the value of that work at umm... How much do you have again? Yes, about that much. Pay up!

Quote:
In some cases the parties are simply too old to expect the recipient to be able to become self-sufficient, particularly if he/she has been out of the workforce for a considerable amount of time.
And CS/SS are just the right dismotivators to keep them on that loser path!
Reply With Quote
  #112 (permalink)  
Old 09-18-2017, 11:49 PM
arabian's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 9,968
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Read up on business valuation (how they are performed) and then you will understand what I failed at getting across to you.
Reply With Quote
  #113 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2017, 10:34 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2011
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,049
Berner_Faith will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
Read up on business valuation (how they are performed) and then you will understand what I failed at getting across to you.


Not worth it... he won't agree ever that there are cases for SS... one of those people who are fine with taking advantage of a spouse staying home for years but then not wanting to offer anything in return. Thankfully the Canadian courts recognize that BOTH partners are worth something when the marriage ends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Reply With Quote
  #114 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2017, 11:02 AM
Rioe's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,248
Rioe will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
Not worth it... he won't agree ever that there are cases for SS... one of those people who are fine with taking advantage of a spouse staying home for years but then not wanting to offer anything in return. Thankfully the Canadian courts recognize that BOTH partners are worth something when the marriage ends.
Arabian's personal situation clouds the issue and should not be used as an example of SS. Her order calls it SS, but it's really long-term payback of equalization. Her ex tried to rip her off through their business, and this is family law's way of partially recouping that for her. It's not a normal case of entitlement for SS.

As for normal SS, I agree that it is something to strive for that it not be so automatic, with the ultimate goal for it to not exist at all. Adults should be assumed to be self-sufficient when they are single. When they are part of a relationship, the way they manage that financial partnership is up to them, but when it ends, they should be prepared to go back to self-sufficiency.

However, we are not there yet. To set that up would require mandated prenups, or at the very least, much better education about the legal and financial aspects of the marriage contract. Nearly all marriages are entered into with the assumption that it will never fail, so the consequences of a break-up are ignored by the two parties. Many marriages are still traditional, and many marriages consist of one person with a good career, and one person with only a job or unemployed, often by mutual agreement that the second income was not as necessary. By mutual agreement, one partner has limited their income potential. So upon relationship breakdown, why should that MUTUAL agreement mean that one partner's earning potential is forever set back from where they would have been had they never married?

Then you would still have tons of people going to court to argue that it wasn't a mutual agreement (unless there's a prenup or postnup). What's the solution? Bring back the concept of fault in divorce?

"Your honour, I wanted her to keep working, but she refused!"
"Your honour, I supported him in school for ten years, on the assumption I would benefit from the results!"
"Your honour, he cheated on me, why must I keep paying him anything!"
Reply With Quote
  #115 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2017, 12:42 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
So why don't more fathers step up and take parental leave? Why is it mostly the wives that do this? Why don't more men take off work to take their children to appointments? Most men don't take on the responsibility of equally raising their children but at the end of a marriage they also don't think the work their wives put into raising their children meant anything.

More men need to take responsibility of their children and be equal parents during the marriage. If that was the case the wives could go back to work and build their career but the truth is if a child is sick the wife stays home, child has an appointment, wife leaves work early. That's what happens in most cases. The men don't take time off, don't leave work early and don't sacrifice their career because they have a wife that does all that.

Maybe husbands should start paying their wives a Nanny wage? That way if the marriage does end the wife has an income and can also go be a Nanny elsewhere. Of course the husband would deduct taxes and everything for the government and issue a T4 at the end of the year so the wife had an income.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes I will respect the fact that mostly women get maternity leave and are the primary caregiver at birth. Might be something to do with “breastfeeding” thing but who knows and yes I know the pump thing also. I also do know that having a child is not a ticket to sit on ones ass till the child has his own children.

A woman can, will, and do the same job as a man and in many cases better, that’s why most of the people I deal with daily manage to have a career also, imagine that! They work, have a family and split the cores within the family. Do you knot think that if one person stayed home then it’s their responsibility to take care of the children to run all the errands? I personally don’t think that most, not all men would prefer their spouse to have a job. Sorry but husbands don’t need to pay a nanny’s wage, they need a job to pay the nanny!
Reply With Quote
  #116 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2017, 12:46 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CoolGuy41 View Post
What you wrote there about CS is perhaps the biggest misconception in family law. Remember that CS and SS both go to the same place and have the same checks on what the recipient does with it; i.e., none at all.

Guideline CS = trueCS + trueSS

The trueSS part is wrong for the reasons discussed. Many people are repulsed by the idea of SS. I think the idea of automatic SS is not accepted by the majority of the population at large, so lawmakers simply rename it to CS. At least SS does not pretend it's something that it is not. CS on the other hand is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The harm of CS is not confined to the financial realm.
Very true but this needs to be even across the board as children need equality, should not be judged by what the parents income are and SS eliminated period!
Reply With Quote
  #117 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2017, 12:51 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rioe View Post
Arabian's personal situation clouds the issue and should not be used as an example of SS. Her order calls it SS, but it's really long-term payback of equalization. Her ex tried to rip her off through their business, and this is family law's way of partially recouping that for her. It's not a normal case of entitlement for SS.

As for normal SS, I agree that it is something to strive for that it not be so automatic, with the ultimate goal for it to not exist at all. Adults should be assumed to be self-sufficient when they are single. When they are part of a relationship, the way they manage that financial partnership is up to them, but when it ends, they should be prepared to go back to self-sufficiency.

However, we are not there yet. To set that up would require mandated prenups, or at the very least, much better education about the legal and financial aspects of the marriage contract. Nearly all marriages are entered into with the assumption that it will never fail, so the consequences of a break-up are ignored by the two parties. Many marriages are still traditional, and many marriages consist of one person with a good career, and one person with only a job or unemployed, often by mutual agreement that the second income was not as necessary. By mutual agreement, one partner has limited their income potential. So upon relationship breakdown, why should that MUTUAL agreement mean that one partner's earning potential is forever set back from where they would have been had they never married?

Then you would still have tons of people going to court to argue that it wasn't a mutual agreement (unless there's a prenup or postnup). What's the solution? Bring back the concept of fault in divorce?

"Your honour, I wanted her to keep working, but she refused!"
"Your honour, I supported him in school for ten years, on the assumption I would benefit from the results!"
"Your honour, he cheated on me, why must I keep paying him anything!"

I would agree!
Reply With Quote
  #118 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2017, 12:56 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
Not worth it... he won't agree ever that there are cases for SS... one of those people who are fine with taking advantage of a spouse staying home for years but then not wanting to offer anything in return. Thankfully the Canadian courts recognize that BOTH partners are worth something when the marriage ends.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Yes, and this is what needs to change.
Reply With Quote
  #119 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2017, 04:03 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2014
Posts: 142
ifonlyihadknown is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Berner_Faith View Post
... taking advantage of a spouse staying home for years ...
I wish I could find someone to take advantage of me like that! And if they are foolish enough to take advantage of me long enough, the courts will insist they continue to do so indefinitely.

I must have missed my calling in life.
Reply With Quote
  #120 (permalink)  
Old 09-19-2017, 04:49 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2013
Posts: 64
1ati2de is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
I wish I could find someone to take advantage of me like that! And if they are foolish enough to take advantage of me long enough, the courts will insist they continue to do so indefinitely.

I must have missed my calling in life.
So very true. It’s hard not to work 40+ hours a week with all the stress of providing for a family, watch soaps, run errands and take care of the kids. Live in a comfortable home, food, cloths, and vacations, possible a car all paid for. Rough life I tell you, I would just hate that.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Section 7/extraordinary expenses when a spouse chooses not to work Serene Divorce & Family Law 4 06-09-2015 01:39 PM
Ex won't work and simply wants to live off me John_Ottawa Divorce & Family Law 57 01-05-2013 09:22 AM
Custody, Work, Travel, Court and Extortion minefield Divorce & Family Law 1 11-16-2012 10:24 AM
sick kids & time off work... mcr Parenting Issues 1 12-15-2008 02:48 PM
Kicked out - no money, no work permit, no help phaidros52 Financial Issues 8 12-07-2005 07:09 AM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:17 PM.