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.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
  #61 (permalink)  
Old 02-21-2014, 02:21 PM
FB_ FB_ is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2012
Posts: 2,407
FB_ will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Mom View Post
The guidelines are applicable to both genders.

If the guidelines are a problem, take up that cause. Keep gender out of the argument altogether, as it is irrelevant to the problem you claim. By including this gender bias argument you completely invalidate your claim by becoming one of those whinimg men.
I agree and as I said it's not gender specific... It's a problem with the math....As simple as that....
Reply With Quote
  #62 (permalink)  
Old 02-21-2014, 02:40 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Serene View Post

We would do ourselves and each other a service if we were to critically analyse letters/posts as these as opposed to picking it apart for entertainment or to find flaw in the person behind it.

We also need to distinguish how gender plays a part in things, which also include families, family law, public policy, finance, etc. A gender bias is different than gendered statistics. And while the law is "gender bias free" the practicing of law is clearly not. This is not subjective, rather this is absolute. Perhaps Karmaseeker could have teased this out and articulated it more clearly in her letter to Trudeau but I did get the message that she was trying to convey regardless.

From a feminist perspective I believe that the family law system is flawed. More specifically it pits the female mother against the male father from the outset, as it is predominantly the mother's who have taken the professional career hit by virtue of having the children. If mom stays at home for any length of time to care for children after birth, it widens the gap professionally and further contributes to the war of custody, access and support.

Did you also know that many employers subconsciously or consciously view a working woman of child bearing years "as pregnant" given they COULD get pregnant? This view in turn negatively impacts their career as often they are discounted professionally, which helps to explain the glass ceiling/staircase that so many women face?

I don't pretend to know the right answers but there are issues that are deeply engrained by gender within the court system, family law and public policy. As an academic I have studied these and done considerable academic (peer reviewed) articles. I am also the author of peer reviewed articles that lend to Karmaseeker's original post.
It was critically analyzed by several posters. When someone chooses to use such inflammatory statements in a letter such as that, it opens the door for critique that goes beyond the actual contents of the letter.

To demonize women as Malicious Mothers will not get the subject heard.

From a feminist point of view, there is nothing to be achieved by a woman attacking her own gender with blanket statements and one-sided opinions.

A feminist point of view would focus on the inequality of men and women in a much broader scale, and not solely focus on a perceived inequality in a system of law that has, on it's books, no gender bias.

There are deep gender biases in the practise of law because there are deep gender biases in the practise of just being human. As you pointed out the glass ceiling - and that has nothing to do with court, ex-wives, ex-husbands or even existing children. It has everything to do with a society that has been conditioned to value women in one capacity and value men in another capacity.

It's logical to assume that once we eliminate the gender biases in the practise of just being human, we can work on the systemic biases that have infiltrated our lives by the way of employment and family law. To expect the cart to come before the horse is completely unreasonable and only further divides.

A us vs them battle won't result in a win for anyone.

As a receipient of this letter, the gender bashing and inaccuracies involved tell me that the writer of such letters is definitely part of the problem. Another part of the problem, men seem to have a difficult time speaking for themselves. I question why that letter wasn't authored by the person who is experiencing these issues - and that would be DAD, not Dad's new wife.

If guideline child support is that issue, champion that cause. If custody/access and prevention of access, etc. is the issue, champion that cause. Don't intertwine them, it makes the whole thing appear petty and money motivated.
Reply With Quote
  #63 (permalink)  
Old 02-21-2014, 02:50 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FB_ View Post
I agree and as I said it's not gender specific... It's a problem with the math....As simple as that....

I haven't looked into how they're calculated in too much detail to be honest. But, in my line of work, when I hear that CS is based on Gross and should be based on net....I question how much someone knows about taxes and payroll deductions at all? The guidelines are based on gross because taxation situations are different for everyone, as are employment based deductions.

For example, I pay 10% vacation pay to unionized workers directly to their hall. That is deducted from their gross and diverted elsewhere, thereby leaving a lesser net. Each union hall is different on how that is handled, so technically, two electricians earning exactly the same amount with one child could be paying completely different amounts of child support because of how their union agreements read.

You can also divert parts of your wages to investment accounts, stocks, bonds, etc., all which affect the net. You can even elect to pay an extra $500 (or whatever you like) per week in income tax if you want, thereby reducing your net significantly.

Guidelines are based on Gross income for very good reasons. It's the number that's difficult to manipulate and change. Net pay is quite easy to change at source.
Reply With Quote
  #64 (permalink)  
Old 02-21-2014, 02:51 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,139
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

It is structural sexism

But I was just referring to the fact that nobody gives a crap that a middle income guy who makes 60k has to give 30% of his money to his broke ass ex-wife.
Reply With Quote
  #65 (permalink)  
Old 02-21-2014, 02:55 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,702
DowntroddenDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
It is structural sexism

But I was just referring to the fact that nobody gives a crap that a middle income guy who makes 60k has to give 30% of his money to his broke ass ex-wife.
Most of us are paying more than that for ex and kids, why not be grateful.

And I don't think it has anything to do with the fact you are male, I think it has everything to do with your financial position.
Reply With Quote
  #66 (permalink)  
Old 02-21-2014, 02:56 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
It is structural sexism

But I was just referring to the fact that nobody gives a crap that a middle income guy who makes 60k has to give 30% of his money to his broke ass ex-wife.

LOL

I'm going to assume that you're meaning SS...But, you're right. They probably don't.

But, someone might care about a middle-income person who has to give 30% of their money to their unsuccessful and uncooperative ex-spouse.

I think that's my point. Be a person, not a man. hahaha
Reply With Quote
  #67 (permalink)  
Old 02-21-2014, 03:09 PM
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,139
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Gross, Net it doesn't matter - that can be adjusted for.

The big problems are at least 2 fold:

1. What is the cost of the child. They use something called equivalence factor which seems to be some ridiculous unsupported value that says adding a second person to a house costs 40% more, a 3rd 30% more and 30% more for each extra. Economists analysed this and found it to be much less.

2. They CS factors don't take into the fact of the children's age (more expensive by age)

3. People don't spend PROPORTIONALLY more on their kids based on their income.

The Australian analysis is here
Costs of children and equivalence scales: a review of methodological issues and Australian estimates | Australian Government Department of Social Services

This "FACT" analysis here
http://www.fact.on.ca/fin_supp/whatwerethey.pdf
(FACT might be an extremist group, not sure)

They are major reads, and I can't say I've independently verified them but interesting nonetheless.
Reply With Quote
  #68 (permalink)  
Old 02-21-2014, 03:09 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Posts: 138
Toutou is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by MS Mom View Post
I haven't looked into how they're calculated in too much detail to be honest. But, in my line of work, when I hear that CS is based on Gross and should be based on net....I question how much someone knows about taxes and payroll deductions at all? The guidelines are based on gross because taxation situations are different for everyone, as are employment based deductions.

For example, I pay 10% vacation pay to unionized workers directly to their hall. That is deducted from their gross and diverted elsewhere, thereby leaving a lesser net. Each union hall is different on how that is handled, so technically, two electricians earning exactly the same amount with one child could be paying completely different amounts of child support because of how their union agreements read.

You can also divert parts of your wages to investment accounts, stocks, bonds, etc., all which affect the net. You can even elect to pay an extra $500 (or whatever you like) per week in income tax if you want, thereby reducing your net significantly.

Guidelines are based on Gross income for very good reasons. It's the number that's difficult to manipulate and change. Net pay is quite easy to change at source.
MS Mom I would not comment on this if you didn't say that other people do not know what they are talking about when talking about net and gross income. Payroll deductions and deciding to pay extra $500 per paycheck for income tax would not have any effect on your net income.
However, it is not really relevant, if I understand correctly, as guidelines are taking into account personal income tax, so that is why the CS amount differ from province to province.

The same goes for spousal support, while the starting point is gross income, income tax and CS amount are taken out to bring it down to net disposable income. Section 7 expenses should also be deducted, but they are usually not as it is really hard to determine in advance.

I agree with Karam seeker that the guidelines are unfair to the children from second families. When you think about it, if a custodial parent has two kids, one from the first family and one from the second, no one is saying (it it would not be fair) that custodial parent needs to spend more of her/his notional CS on first child and less on second child. While, non custodial parents are expected to treat their children differently. This is one thing I would like to be changed. Australia would be a good example to follow in my opinion.
Reply With Quote
  #69 (permalink)  
Old 02-21-2014, 03:12 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toutou View Post
MS Mom I would not comment on this if you didn't say that other people do not know what they are talking about when talking about net and gross income. Payroll deductions and deciding to pay extra $500 per paycheck for income tax would not have any effect on your net income.
However, it is not really relevant, if I understand correctly, as guidelines are taking into account personal income tax, so that is why the CS amount differ from province to province.

The same goes for spousal support, while the starting point is gross income, income tax and CS amount are taken out to bring it down to net disposable income. Section 7 expenses should also be deducted, but they are usually not as it is really hard to determine in advance.

I agree with Karam seeker that the guidelines are unfair to the children from second families. When you think about it, if a custodial parent has two kids, one from the first family and one from the second, no one is saying (it it would not be fair) that custodial parent needs to spend more of her/his notional CS on first child and less on second child. While, non custodial parents are expected to treat their children differently. This is one thing I would like to be changed. Australia would be a good example to follow in my opinion.
I stopped reading when I got to "payroll deductions don't affect your net income".

The difference between Gross and Net is Payroll Deductions.
Reply With Quote
  #70 (permalink)  
Old 02-21-2014, 03:17 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,151
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
Gross, Net it doesn't matter - that can be adjusted for.

The big problems are at least 2 fold:

1. What is the cost of the child. They use something called equivalence factor which seems to be some ridiculous unsupported value that says adding a second person to a house costs 40% more, a 3rd 30% more and 30% more for each extra. Economists analysed this and found it to be much less.

2. They CS factors don't take into the fact of the children's age (more expensive by age)

3. People don't spend PROPORTIONALLY more on their kids based on their income.

The Australian analysis is here
Costs of children and equivalence scales: a review of methodological issues and Australian estimates | Australian Government Department of Social Services

This "FACT" analysis here
http://www.fact.on.ca/fin_supp/whatwerethey.pdf
(FACT might be an extremist group, not sure)

They are major reads, and I can't say I've independently verified them but interesting nonetheless.

I can understand the age argument, they do cost more as they get older.

I not sure on the equivalence factor. Are you stating that by way of more than one children the guidelines aren't reflected correctly?
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
Order wording concerning travel letter. HappyMomma Divorce & Family Law 4 06-18-2013 08:27 PM
Letter from CRA FB_ Financial Issues 5 05-03-2013 11:04 AM
Can I have help to Vet this letter to Other Side's laywer please E-Gal Financial Issues 2 10-23-2012 04:14 PM
Canada Child tax benefit CCTB letter and female presumption agreatdad Financial Issues 13 07-23-2012 12:56 PM
Asking for comments on my draft response letter Margaret-Krupa Divorce & Family Law 14 04-24-2012 02:48 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:56 PM.