Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This system needs work!!

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by Soiled View Post
    Comparing SS and marriage to an employee/employer relationship is simplistic at best. Heck, I think I made a similar argument here in the past, and got schooled... But does anyone look at their employer/employee and state 'till death do us part'?
    Simplistic? I've been married to my employer for double that of my ex. As its a "contract"...there is no difference. With every contract there are rules...there are no differences, unless you add love. And love is not in any contract especially during divorce. They are one and the same....one is based on capitalism the other socialism (privatized welfare). Marriage has been pumped by feminism for years as a humanitarian/human rights issue. Remove love...it is a contract. A contract with business, financial responsibilities and rules. No different than a employee and employer. Fact is FACT! History has also proven that when problems are work on at the most basic form and built on from a common foundation....solid solutions are achieved. Feminism turn it into a very complex matter...thus here we are today.

    You've got it backward....I'll let you do the research regards to marriage and divorce in Canada. With less and less people tying the knot today....does anyone look at their spouse as til death do us part anymore? More and more people know marriage is poison...the restriction that government placed on it has turned it very toxic to any and every man.

    Lobby the government? Fight feminism? Good suggestions on joining a party....Only both the major parties all avoid it as its a public disaster when the media get a hold of it. CAFE is a start and the documentary "The Red Pill" (banned in most countries as it shows feminism for what it is)...just begins to change medias perspective.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Newfie76 View Post
      I disagree....if there was evidence of fraud....your ex would have been prosecuted. Not saying he did not fraud you...I am only saying there must have been no evidence. Prosecution will look at the entire case and decide on moving forward based on evidence, time in court (weeks/months/years), and chances of winning. Of course evidence would almost eliminate the other two.

      Family court is not to decide if a spouse is awarded SS based on fraud or not. That's ridiculous. You were provided SS based on a 30 year marriage, your a woman, of which you most likely claimed that you took care of the household while your ex did not. Adding into the fact you were disadvantaged due to the relationship you had within the business. Even better if you claim your disabled and limited in your ability to do some things. cha ching... SS for you my dear. Cash for Life!! The big easy!!

      Don't worry too much your indefinite ruling will hold. "until death due us part..." is the only thing the court refuses to remove from a canceled marriage contract.

      Its surprising how this country, with its "great" Charter of Rights, thinks its ethical to in-debt a individual to a life time of slavery. And on top of that think its in the best interest of the children....disgusting.

      Sorry Arabian.....you may think that your ss is payback....but its not. You got what every other woman got in your shoes. A lottery win.
      You tell that to the police department who did, in fact, charge him with fraud over 5000 (I did not). Oh there was evidence. Police Department's don't pursue these matters if there isn't any evidence. Attorney General of Alberta's Prosecutor/ decided not to prosecute. That is all. You obviously have no idea of what you are talking about and/or watch too much American television.

      SS (which was considered substantial at the time) will not come close to reimbursing me for my losses. I am, and always have been, self-sufficient. Have worked since I was age 16. SS is decided upon an individual basis. I had a private divorce (JDR) and judge was well aware of the fraud. So have subsequent judges been aware of it. 12 different judges have handled my litigation post-divorce.

      Ex wiped me out financially and left me holding the bag for corporate debt. Meanwhile he went on to make substantial income. I would never be able to make the income that he has and could generate. My ex made some very big mistakes with his various lawyers. I'm not going to state on this thread what specifically he did incorrectly. What I have done through the years, however, is point things out to many MEN on this forum what NOT to do.

      Speculate all you want.... just keep paying your SS to your ex.

      Comment


      • #18
        Arabian: Don't enter into a debate with these guys. When one of them can give birth to another human being they can start singing equality!

        It's apples and oranges. You cannot make a blanket statement that in all marriages with children both parents should work in case the marriage fails and one,parent would be on the hook for SS.

        When one parent has a job that demands movement every couple,of years - banks, armed forces for example, then the other parent has no,chance of securing a steady career. Oh wait perhaps you should also suggest it's best that anyone in these profession not marry or have children.

        Both parents working and children spending more time with caregivers than a parent is destroying the family unit. Perhaps you would prefer we put all newborns into camps and they be raised by the state until they are of working age where they can rejoin their parents and contribute financially.

        For Gods sake this is life! You cannot hedge your bets for every outcome. Divorce or death who knows what the future will bring.

        Better not go in a car you might have an accident,and your insurance will not be enough to cover your future needs.

        Better still get marriage insurance!

        You are bitter because you might have to take of your money out of your pocket! Too bad life sucks for you anyway! Maybe you were not,such a great husband!

        Comment


        • #19
          I have to wonder why all these men complain their spouse didn't work but they were not inclined to take time off work to raise their children? It was easier to leave it up to their spouses. As for how can you force someone to work? Well you're right you can't however if your agreement was that Mom stay home for only a year and then return to work then you had an obligation to stick to that agreement as well. If your spouse didn't return to work after a year you could have left them then! Simple! I mean they broke your agreement so leave... oh you didn't leave but instead didn't care that your spouse stayed home? Then suck it up when the marriage ends and pay. You consented to your spouse staying home by NOT leaving the relationship when they broke that agreement you had.


          Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by Newfie76 View Post
            Correct. You provided labour raising children, as did your husband earning the money for the household. For the "household". Everything you needed your husband provided. Shelter, Food, Clothing, Car, makeup, etc... Some of this he probably covered/managed while he gave you money to by the rest. You had a joint credit card? You had a credit card? Who paid it? From who's money? Long story short...I am sure you shared the fruits of his labour. The time during the marriage, what was his is yours and yours his, including his salary.
            Originally posted by Newfie76 View Post
            Easy...you decided not to work. And you were compensated during your marriage.
            And frankly, you should be grateful for that slab of fried bologna, served 7x a week!
            Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by arabian View Post
              Totally naive, in particular regarding Spousal Support:

              I financed my ex/our business for many years... decades. (A full partnership in an incorporated business). Upon separation he took off with all the money and left me holding the bag for corporate debt. You had better believe he pays me SS - indefinitely.

              The only "improvement" required is in my ex's department. I'm self-sufficient (always have been). SS is the only way I can recoup a small percentage of my losses.

              -------

              easy answer - don't get married... don't procreate..

              be sure to be prepared to look after yourself when you are a old man, all alone, surrounded by your "wealth"

              Sheesh
              Naïve? You cannot possibly be serious or you have actually brainwashed yourself into thinking that he actually owes you? He owes you nothing and from what I have read he has not been charged with anything correct? It was a business that went bad and you were left holding the torch, both should have had the same debt and he defiantly should have been charged with fraud by steeling the money…if it was proven.

              Do you honestly think you would get one cent if you had the same identical business outcome with a family member, close friend, investor? They would be on the hook to pay you support indefinitely? I would love to see that however one partner can go to dysfunctional family court system and have the other partner pay? Yes the system works very well I tell you!

              Need to really think who is naïve here?? Im not disrespecting you by and means but in any other circumstances in any other courtroom except family law this would be tossed out.

              Comment


              • #22
                Arabian, dont even get into it here. There are problems with the system yes but bitter people are the internets problem.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                  Arabian, dont even get into it here. There are problems with the system yes but bitter people are the internets problem.
                  But, are the same people that gum up court rooms with all sorts of crappy arguments like this too.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    Originally posted by Tayken View Post
                    But, are the same people that gum up court rooms with all sorts of crappy arguments like this too.


                    Ive always said that unreasonable people (who could also be bitter) are the biggest problem in family court.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by rockscan View Post
                      Ive always said that unreasonable people (who could also be bitter) are the biggest problem in family court.
                      I disagree, when family court can dictate to you what you are liable short and long term because you decided to live, or marry is the problem. I don’t think bitter is the word to use as it’s not logical for any human to support any human under any circumstances.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
                        I disagree, when family court can dictate to you what you are liable short and long term because you decided to live, or marry is the problem. I don’t think bitter is the word to use as it’s not logical for any human to support any human under any circumstances.
                        It certainly should not be the taxpayer's responsibility....

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by arabian View Post
                          It certainly should not be the taxpayer's responsibility....
                          So then please explain how this is either partner’s responsibility to “pay” for the person to live? In most cases both parties individually have made more money in the duration, financially they have grown with investments and other means together. So why would the one partner who usually started with a higher income on the hook to pay the other partner? I guarantee when most people meet no one is pulling someone off the street, taking them off welfare in order to live together. Both parties were living separate lives before without help now one person has to subsidise ones income?

                          Only in family law can this take place, the one with the higher income is always on the hook to pay for the other person for whatever reason and to boot with a timeframe with or without children. I would like to hear this and the government needs to stay out of people’s lives as majority of the cases its hatred and greed. I personally have settled and don’t pay, I’m not bitter about it but the system needs to be looked at as it is a joke.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
                            So then please explain how this is either partner’s responsibility to “pay” for the person to live? In most cases both parties individually have made more money in the duration, financially they have grown with investments and other means together. So why would the one partner who usually started with a higher income on the hook to pay the other partner? I guarantee when most people meet no one is pulling someone off the street, taking them off welfare in order to live together. Both parties were living separate lives before without help now one person has to subsidise ones income?



                            Only in family law can this take place, the one with the higher income is always on the hook to pay for the other person for whatever reason and to boot with a timeframe with or without children. I would like to hear this and the government needs to stay out of people’s lives as majority of the cases its hatred and greed. I personally have settled and don’t pay, I’m not bitter about it but the system needs to be looked at as it is a joke.


                            So I assume you would be okay with your tax dollars going towards welfare for separated parents who have no income?

                            You fail to understand that both partners have a fault in the scenarios they create... it wasn't just one spouse who decides to stay home, that is ALWAYS a family decision. If as a partner you don't agree then you leave the relationship... by staying you are accepting this behaviour and thus are also at fault. No matter what you think, it takes two in order to make these decisions.

                            Stay at home parents are always great until separation happens and then all the sudden the other parent cries wolf and states they never agreed to it!


                            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                              So I assume you would be okay with your tax dollars going towards welfare for separated parents who have no income?

                              You fail to understand that both partners have a fault in the scenarios they create... it wasn't just one spouse who decides to stay home, that is ALWAYS a family decision. If as a partner you don't agree then you leave the relationship... by staying you are accepting this behaviour and thus are also at fault. No matter what you think, it takes two in order to make these decisions.

                              Stay at home parents are always great until separation happens and then all the sudden the other parent cries wolf and states they never agreed to it!


                              Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                              No I do not think that taxpayer’s money should go to anyone who doesn’t want to work period, especially ones that were married and separated and refuse to work.

                              You are absolutely right that with the birth of a child both parents need to split the maternity time 50/50 for a minimum of 2 years. Government should supply daycare for children over the age of 2 to allow both parents to work to sustain equality in the marriage period! Then nothing can be said about one person took care of the family and one went to work or anything about welfare OR support. This I would support and will have abundance of cash saved with little Family Court.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
                                No I do not think that taxpayer’s money should go to anyone who doesn’t want to work period, especially ones that were married and separated and refuse to work.



                                You are absolutely right that with the birth of a child both parents need to split the maternity time 50/50 for a minimum of 2 years. Government should supply daycare for children over the age of 2 to allow both parents to work to sustain equality in the marriage period! Then nothing can be said about one person took care of the family and one went to work or anything about welfare OR support. This I would support and will have abundance of cash saved with little Family Court.


                                Why should tax payers have to pay for parents to put their children in daycare? What about the mass of people who don't have kids? Their tax dollars go towards other peoples kids because parents don't want to be responsible for their own offspring?


                                Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                                Comment

                                Our Divorce Forums
                                Forums dedicated to helping people all across Canada get through the separation and divorce process, with discussions about legal issues, parenting issues, financial issues and more.
                                Working...
                                X