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
  #1 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2011, 07:39 PM
karmaseeker's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here :)
Posts: 470
karmaseeker is on a distinguished road
Default Study shows how child support guidelines punish those who pay support

"(March 26, 2011) For those who still believe that child support payments in Canada are fair and just then the attached file should give those unbelievers something to ponder. In reality, child support in Canada is very punitive and unfair. Every year in Canada, support payers end up taking their own lives out of desperation after being chased by the FRO and other government collection agencies."


Study shows how child support guidelines punish those who pay support | Canada Court Watch
Reply With Quote
  #2 (permalink)  
Old 05-30-2011, 09:02 PM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 341
winterwolf7 is on a distinguished road
Default

I feel ill... literally.

It all makes perfect sense how support recipients are able to double or triple dip in the benefits of having their kids, while the payors are doubly or triply penalized.

No one believes me when I say I make 63k per year but I was only taking home $1400 a month (17k per year)... but the double and triple dipping my ex enjoys allows her to have more take home income than I do BY NOT EVEN GOING TO WORK!

73% of my income is gone, to be exact.

Standard of living? I used to be able to afford to a 4 bedroom house for me and my finally. Now I barely make enough money to afford a single bed room in someone elses house. Bachelor apartments are not an option. I dream of being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment. Just a tiny bit more and I would be completely homeless despite my well above average income.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but how we can get any of this to change?
Reply With Quote
  #3 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 09:32 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 90
canadamama is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

I don't get this. I didn't read through the whole thing - it's really long and it clearly has an agenda from the start. Forst of all, this is NOT a study, it is a 'report' which is a) very obviously highly subjective, with its big yellow NOT FAIR tags all over the place, and b) very blatant about the fact that is has a clear agenda - "help Canadian individuals and organizations in their efforts to expose and to correct the miscarriage of Justice that has been committed against Canadian children and their families as a result of lack of accountability and due diligence by Canada’s Department of Justice." Pre-assumptions all OVER the place. Start with a conclusion and go from there.

Second of all, I looked through the charts and like I said, while I did not read them all, the big yellow NOT FAIR tags are plastered all over the place completely indiscriminately, and I disagree with their assessment in many cases. If the payor makes $100K, and the recipient (who has the kids) makes $20K, why is it unfair if the final tally leaves the recipient, who is raising the children of the marriage, and paying for their food, their housing, their clothing - everything - to be coming out with a household income of $42,092.59, while the person living alone has a household income of $54,618.85? The SOL of the payor is going to be WAY higher than that of the recipient - and more importantly, of the kids. The kids are living in a household with far less disposable income than that which the payor enjoys. How is this unfair to the payor?
Kids are bloody expensive. This whole CS thing keeps getting tangled up with entitlement issues that are directed at the WRONG party. CS isn't about one adult person giving money to the other adult person. It is about contributing to the HOUSEHOLD where the children reside, so they can be properly provided for to the best ability of both parents, according to their respective financial resources. This whole idea that it is OK for the household without children to have double the income of the household with the children - why would any parent want that??
I read a lot here about how the recipient parent should just 'suck it up' but at the end of the day it's not them that has to suck it up - it's the kids, who, if the author of this report had their way, would be living in a household with a 30K income while the other parent is living single on... what... 70K?
Please.
How much you hate your ex, and how badly you got screwed over in your marriage is IRRELEVANT when calculating CS. It may make you seethe to watch them live in a sweet house and drive a minivan while you have to get by with a 1-bedroom and a compact, but the reality is that that sweet house is your KIDS' house too, and that minivan means a lot more mobility and opportunity to get around and do stuff with their friends.
I noticed that ALL of the charts in this "study" (man that is bugging me) assume that the person who is paying CS makes more. Well Boo Hoo. How about when they make less? Guess what - they still have to pay and contribute to their children's well-being and that is as it should be.
It's not ABOUT who gets more - it's about making sure that children can enjoy the standard of living their parents can provide for them, and yes, kids are expensive.
Reply With Quote
  #4 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 09:54 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Posts: 639
LostFather is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by winterwolf7 View Post
I feel ill... literally.

It all makes perfect sense how support recipients are able to double or triple dip in the benefits of having their kids, while the payors are doubly or triply penalized.

No one believes me when I say I make 63k per year but I was only taking home $1400 a month (17k per year)... but the double and triple dipping my ex enjoys allows her to have more take home income than I do BY NOT EVEN GOING TO WORK!

73% of my income is gone, to be exact.

Standard of living? I used to be able to afford to a 4 bedroom house for me and my finally. Now I barely make enough money to afford a single bed room in someone elses house. Bachelor apartments are not an option. I dream of being able to afford a 1 bedroom apartment. Just a tiny bit more and I would be completely homeless despite my well above average income.

I know I'm preaching to the choir here, but how we can get any of this to change?
we have to stand together we have to get vocal and we need to organize. I have said many times already I am in and will help anyway I can but i need more than just one or three people. Lets set up a meeting.
Reply With Quote
  #5 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 09:59 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Posts: 341
winterwolf7 is on a distinguished road
Default

Sorry but no kids cost $46,000 per year in your example, nor should simply having 1 child increase your own income by 110% from 20k to 42k.

The real point is that the tables cause great injustices at both the lower end of income, and lead to unfair enrichment at the higher end of income. If you're in the middle to middle-upper range it works out reasonable well. Your example of 54k and 42k for the two households is still pretty unfair, but does results in a workable situation for both parties to enjoy a good standard of living.

How about my situation? I went from 63k net down to 17k per year gross. What kind of standard of living do I get? I didn't choose this divorce, I was kicked out and now 73% of my income has been stolen from me, not even leaving me enough to have an apartment or a compact car.

Like most guys, I love my kids and want to support them, but their mom chose to quit on our partnership and that means she has an equal responsibility to provide for them financially. The table amounts do not provide a realistic measure of what it costs. Produce your receipts, show us where the money goes, and we'll glady pay half (or proportionally) for that. Anything more is simply punitive and greedy.
Reply With Quote
  #6 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 10:02 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 90
canadamama is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

Just went back and had another look - one of the determinants that this "study" uses to make its Fair/Unfair assessment is, "Does the child result in a financial profit or loss to the parent?"

I am sorry I cannot take this seriously at ALL.
Reply With Quote
  #7 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 10:46 AM
karmaseeker's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here :)
Posts: 470
karmaseeker is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by canadamama View Post
it's about making sure that children can enjoy the standard of living their parents can provide for them, and yes, kids are expensive.

So kids at Payee's house deserve a standard of Living A (big house, lots of activities, lots of holidays, all amenities covered, etc).

and then enjoy a substandard of living B while visiting their father? Because all that money is only supporting standard of Living at the Payee's house?

This isn't equalization it is robbery.

My fiancee is slowly being bled dry to maitain a standard of living that was based on those two individuals sharing that big house, the holidays to Florida etc. Now he has to support that plus second house big enough for the his kids to come 3/4 weekends a month. he is under the magic 40% so he pays twice for everything.

It shouldn't be about upholding one standard of living it should be about equalizing - which it isn't.
Reply With Quote
  #8 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 11:02 AM
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,717
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Coming from CanadaCourtWatch it will have an obvious agenda with little factual relevance.

I agree with some of CCW's principles, however, their methodology and "studies" always leave me LOL'ing on the inside.

As for Canadamama's example of $100k vs $20k, the biggest issues I have with your reasonings are:

1. The 100k is grosse, the net would be closer to $65k after taxes and deductions. Then you take the $22k for CS, you have a net of close to $43k.

2. Your logic of "living alone" is fundamentally flawed. The NCP still has to maintain a residence capable of housing the children during their time. So they too will incur similar expenses as the CP.

3. There have been other, more unbiased studies and reports, that have stated that the current guidelines provide for a form of spousal support in them. They were prepared years ago, but no one seemed to have cared.

Last edited by HammerDad; 05-31-2011 at 11:07 AM.
Reply With Quote
  #9 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 11:07 AM
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2011
Posts: 90
canadamama is an unknown quantity at this point
Default

OK so the problem here is the magic 40% then, because there are LOTS of parents who a)refuse to pay a thing over CS, saying, "Ask your other parent - that's why I send him/her money every month" and b) don't actually spend even CLOSE to 40% with their kids, like my ex, who doesn't even live in this COUNTRY. It's all on me - nobody is paying twice in this scenario, and so yes, in my case, it IS only supporting SOL at my house.

After separation, there isn't enough to go around for everyone to have the SOL they had before - that's reality. If there is going to be hardship, it shouldn't be borne by the kids. Period.

The numbers I saw in that report (I can't call it a study) do not look to me like they are horribly unfair. You are focusing on how the recipient's income is increasing by 132%... but if that is reframed as the household income of the children's primary residence, and it can be achieved by the payor reducing their own income by 23%, how is that so unreasonable??

These are numbers straight off of this chart that is supposed to be so damning... and they don't seem so crazy to me at all.
Reply With Quote
  #10 (permalink)  
Old 05-31-2011, 11:11 AM
karmaseeker's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Here :)
Posts: 470
karmaseeker is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by LostFather View Post
we have to stand together we have to get vocal and we need to organize. I have said many times already I am in and will help anyway I can but i need more than just one or three people. Lets set up a meeting.

I'd be in. Might be the only woman there but hey!

Most of the Dads organizations seem to be lacking some oomph.

I wonder how many men have commited suicide because of this. That would be a statistic that might convince people.

What kind of standard of living is there when the dad is DEAD? Oh that's right my fiancee is actually worth more dead (that would be if he signed life insurance policy # 3 that she was insisting on in exchange for an access agreement - nothing like a little extortion) which I didn't let him sign. Or does suicide negate that 300,000 would be policy?
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
Who is responsible for Child Support momof3 Divorce & Family Law 16 05-12-2011 11:20 AM
cs and s7 obligations 06nomad Divorce & Family Law 5 05-11-2011 04:46 PM
Please allow me to introduce myself... with the usual questions on Custody, CS, SS... samej Introductions 14 04-20-2011 01:43 PM
Spousal Equivalent for CRA Cobourg Divorce & Family Law 21 01-14-2010 07:43 AM
child support guidelines Mikesgal Divorce & Family Law 3 05-17-2006 11:42 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:08 PM.