Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Closed Thread
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #21 (permalink)  
Old 04-29-2006, 10:20 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 83
workingthruit is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenny
Or do you expect your children to suffer in poverty?


child support is for the children - but are you saying that a small one bedroom with utilities and groceries for one person is anywhere CLOSE to a 3 bedroom apt or house with the same utilities and groceries. UMMMM don't think so.

I suspect you are being deliberately obtuse here - the difference between my expenses to support ONLY myself, vs the costs to support myself and 2 children are not greater than $1400 a month.

And my children are a far cry from living in poverty - nor would any child with 2 working parents, who were BOTH contributing to their support be. If I can do it on my salary and $700 a month C/S in Toronto, it should be possible almost anywhere in Canada.

Even if their dad made 5x what I do, we should both still be contributing the same percentage of our salaries to the children's expenses. His contribution shouldn't be the ONLY one.
Also, if he made 5x what I make, there would doubtless be considerable overflow - which I could spend wherever I liked ... now fair is that to him?

Now he is more than supporting the children, I am reaping the benefits of that - AND I should be asking for more in the way of spousal support? Seems like I am just being greedy now, doesn't it?
But, I digress.
  #22 (permalink)  
Old 04-29-2006, 10:57 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2006
Posts: 322
today is on a distinguished road
Default

Now thats something you don't see everyday. Condrads on your rational thinking. Wish there were more like you.

Of course you know you may take a beating for being reasonable here on this subject. Lokks like you already have.
  #23 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2006, 07:49 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 281
Divorcemanagement has a spectacular aura aboutDivorcemanagement has a spectacular aura about
Default The debate continues...

What started out as child support morphed into spousal support - alas, money is money I suppose.

The guidelines are far from perfect, but then again, what we had before the guidelines was far from perfect too. Everything is relative when you decide to conduct a cost versus benefit analysis of a particular family law related issue - however, few people look at the cost of not coming to an agreement on spousal support: nor do they look at the cost of not coming to an agreement on child support before the guidelines came into force back in 1997.

It's hard to get your head around a cookie cutter approach to child support when every family is different and every family spends on their children according to their means versus by means of a national set of tables that parents in functional marriages should be required to contribute to.

It is entirely likely therefore, that children from intact marriages receive less financial support on a monthly basis than children of divorce. But the reason this exists is because OF the intact marriage - in other words, there is an assumption that both parents in a functional marriage get along and are going to do right by their kids. In divorce scenarios, that assumption no longer exists because of the divorce. Period - end of story.

The particular interests of those groups and organizations who supported Bill C-41 is largely moot at this stage of the game. Sure, you can say that politicians are in the back pocket of women's groups. (I have to wonder why fully effective and similar men's organizations with the same kind of clout don't exist or exist largely in a notional capacity and exclusively in cyber space).

So I will put it out to the universe: if the CS law is the result of women's groups and blatantly unfair, then why in the ten years since C-41 haven't men's groups been able to build a base of support for their view of the world. (And don't tell me it's because of lack of funding either - all non-profit organizations spend about 50% of their time conducting fundraising initiatives - initiatives that DO NOT INCLUDE receiving government funding. I am talking about writing grants, conducting event fundraising, capital campaigns and the real "meat and potatoes" kind of fundraising)

I will also add (Sorry to bring this up Jeff - but it is critical to my premise) that if indeed a "big bad ol' feminist conspiracy that is bent on transforming our society into a bunch of "feminazi drones" exists, then they are successful because they know that men will simply "roll over and take it like a man". Very simply, if the CS guidelines are feminist driven - if the government is in the back pocket of feminists (and I would argue the Harper government isn't - the parliamentary secretary for the Status of Women is a guy - but I digress) then why haven't the oppressed men out there simply risen up and struck down their oppressor?

It hasn't happened. (Maybe women's groups know something about men that men don't even know themselves.) So, if the squeaky wheel gets the grease, then the squeaky wheel known as "men's groups" have been as quiet as a church mouse.

Last edited by Divorcemanagement; 04-30-2006 at 07:55 AM.
  #24 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2006, 11:11 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 225
Jenny is on a distinguished road
Default

I am not being obtuse - just trying to figure you out...

Okay ... so you wouldn't have accepted spousal and if you had your way you would take less then the guidelines. Even assuming you were making 5 times less then your spouse. You believe that you should be paying the same percentage. Assuming that you are making a small amount of money. Like the 20 000 a year that was mentioned as opposed to the 100 000 an ex was making. Assuming no taxes were being paid at all - that gives you 1600 a month. How much should the ex be paying- I doubt that goes very far at all towards raising a child. say you spend 10% - that means he sends you 800 a month and you are expected to contribute $160. So that means a family of 3 lives on $2200 a month, and the ex lives on $8300 a month for 1( these figures are all gross income btw) This is what you want?

I also can't believe you spend such a small difference as a parent of 2 children and as a single person. I suppose you also don't agree with those studies that tell you how much it takes to raise a child these days. I suppose Toronto is more expensive than Ottawa, but a three bedroom apt goes for like at least 1300 here plus utilities. A 1 br in a similar area would be closer to 800. That alone is 500 bucks more that a person wouldn't have to spend without children. I am assuming your children eat at least a couple hundred more then you would spend in groceries ( I am also assuming that you plan more nutritious meals than as a single person) How about utilities? 3 people use more heat, more water, more electricity. Lets add 200 bucks more in utilities then( bigger place you know) so we are at about 900 bucks now. How about clothing those kids....

How about entertaining them? do you rent kids movies for them once a week? Do you buy them any games or books? Toys?

How about gas money shuttling them to school or daycare or activities. A single person will often take a bus or live downtown to just walk to work.. tough to do with kids. Then you are talking bus passes for 3 people instead of a car or just for one. An annual bus pass for an adult is about 800 a year and a child is about half that if i am not mistaken.

A family gym membership is at least 30 bucks more then a single persons. The list is endless. It is definitely cheaper to live as a single person.
  #25 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2006, 12:18 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 44
beltane is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jenny
It is definitely cheaper to live as a single person.
Not only cheaper... but there is NO comparison to the amount of free time. My ex sees our youngest child once, *maybe* twice a month, and it is only for about 2 hours in a restaurant for a meal. That's it. He has freely chosen, not out of employment necessity, to live 2 cities away from his child. He quite literally does NOTHING to assist with the physical work of our child. None of the simple things that still add up to MY time... grocery shopping, cleaning the house, nagging said child to pick up after himself, driving to the doctor, etc. It adds up to much MUCH less personal time for me. Whereas my ex quite literally, except for those 4 hours a month, as ALL his own time to himself to do as he pleases.

Just thinking about it as I type is exhausting!

For me, I truly believe that I am entitled to indefinite spousal support. When considered as a "business contract", my ex and I signed a contract, aka a marriage license, where we agreed to this partnership for our entire life. In agreement and in good faith, I gave up the most important years of my life that would have formed the foundation for a secure career. He enjoyed the benefits of those years. I didn't mind, because in my mind according to our agreement, we would be together and we would both enjoy the benefits of his secure career into our senior years until we died.

He wanted out of that contract, and as with any contract, there are sometimes financial consequences.

Now, mere years away from when I should have been able to retire, I am looking at trying to establish a career when I am only qualified for minimum wage work. He earns 5 times what I earn. Even if I return to university I would be looking at 4 years of school, and then forming that career and trying to work my way up. I would be in my early 60s before that happens.

The truth of the situation is: companies don't hire 60 year-olds who are freshly out of university the way they hire young people who have the energy and time ahead of them for the job. It's just the way it is.

I truly am looking at, unless I win the lottery, living at poverty level for the rest of my life.

Spousal support provides the necessary 'balance' when one partner dissolves the business agreement entered into so many years ago. Thank god it exists.
  #26 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2006, 12:30 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 225
Jenny is on a distinguished road
Default

Exactly beltane. It is a contract - there are compensation aspects to it as well as the "income sharing" component.

I know I gave up a good job with seniority, moved across the country for his job- his career was always more important then mine, I did most of the day to day jobs involved in taking care of a household( I worked as well)These moves meant my work prospects were more limited.

He made significantly more than I did and me doing all this stuff- meant he could focus on his career more and as a result made more money. I do feel in our case and many cases spousal support is called for. I sure don't feel bad taking what little I am taking from him . BTW I took support for half the length of the marriage.

For those who don't believe in spousal, think of your mothers..... can you imagine what their employment prospects were like after staying home for 20 years. Do you expect them to go back to school at 50 , work for less then 10 years at an entry level job and then they would be at the same place as your fathers? The employment situation for someone who is 54 and newly graduated from university could hardly compare to someone with 30 more years of experience. Indefinite support is called for in this situation.
  #27 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2006, 12:32 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 225
Jenny is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by beltane
Not only cheaper... but there is NO comparison to the amount of free time. He quite literally does NOTHING to assist with the physical work of our child. None of the simple things that still add up to MY time... grocery shopping, cleaning the house, nagging said child to pick up after himself, driving to the doctor, etc. It adds up to much MUCH less personal time for me.

Just thinking about it as I type is exhausting!
Very good point.

Quote:
Originally Posted by beltane
Thank god it exists.
Agreed!
  #28 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2006, 01:24 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Calgary
Posts: 281
Divorcemanagement has a spectacular aura aboutDivorcemanagement has a spectacular aura about
Default Free Money

re: Spousal Support - I am a realist and I have yet to meet anyone, male or female who is going to turn down free money.
  #29 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2006, 01:38 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2005
Location: Ottawa
Posts: 225
Jenny is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divorcemanagement
re: Spousal Support - I am a realist and I have yet to meet anyone, male or female who is going to turn down free money.

So here is the question Workingthruit.... do you pass the "extra" money out of the 700 bucks you say is too high back to your ex? if not how come?
  #30 (permalink)  
Old 04-30-2006, 01:44 PM
Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 44
beltane is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Divorcemanagement
re: Spousal Support - I am a realist and I have yet to meet anyone, male or female who is going to turn down free money.
Sean... I am somewhat disturbed by your remark... the spousal support *I* receive (actually will be receiving, along with some much needed arrears from his delay tactics) is most certainly NOT "free money"... I paid a very high price for the spousal support I am receiving!

I EARNED that money over the course of 27 years, 5 kids, 24 hour days, no vacations... I agreed to it, true... but the point is: even if my ex had PAID me as a nanny/housekeeper for those 27 years I would have at least had an income, CPP, a job history, savings... spousal support is NOT FREE MONEY.

I work hard right now at 3 jobs, 7 days a week. I have a son in university, a daughter in college, a son in high school and another adult daughter who works full time saving for university. My ex pays child support for 2 kids and so far hasn't paid a DIME of spousal support. I am hoping that finally this week we will have an agreement sorted out. It has been draining on me emotionally and financially.

Your flippant remark inferring that spousal support is "free money" is exactly what wives (and probably some husbands) dumped later in life are fighting against. You do us a disservice with careless statements like that when we are trying to educate the public about the truth of our situations.
Closed Thread


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



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:02 PM.