Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Spousal Support Guidelines - Canada - Even Uglier

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

  • #61
    When you pay a special assessment on a condo, you still get the condo. In fact you benefit directly from the money being put into upgrading or fixing the building. It's an investment (of a sort, even if not by choice) in your property, or at least a cost associated with you owning it, living in it or renting it to others.

    If you sold the place and moved out and the condo corp was able to come after you for special assessments after you left and no longer had the use of the house, were unable to use the upgrades and derived zero benefit from it then maybe your example would be a bit closer to that of spousal support.

    I think in that case you might feel the system was not fair.

    Consider it analogous to leaving the condo, moving out and still being forced to continue paying the rent or mortgage on it for another 5 years. Try paying rent on two homes at once and see if you can move on with your life. Try buying a new 60" LCD television every 30 days for 5 years. That's what spousal costs in real terms.
    Last edited by FightingForFamily; 08-11-2016, 04:28 PM.

    Comment


    • #62
      More amusingly, your ex was not financially responsible. At least you had the freedom to leave. Were you ordered to keep paying his bills so he could continue his irresponsible spending after you split? I mean, you supported his bad habits while you were together. So it's totally fair you should continue to subsidize his lifestyle since he was used to it and you were OK with it when you were together.

      You said you didn't get a chunk of equalization to make up for your loss during the relationship. The reality is spousal support is the OPPOSITE of this. You would be forced to continue paying for his needs, not compensated for your losses.

      Comment


      • #63
        Magic3's posts were very timely - child support for the children - HAHA, yeah right!

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by FightingForFamily View Post
          Arabian: My former spouse was out of the workforce for only 2 years total, for maternity leave and stress leave. I paid full SS and CS for half the length of the marriage, which corresponded with school starting. It's done now. She planned the divorce for about a year and then stole everything from the bank, changed the locks and tried to have me arrested as a sexual predator. She also ended up keeping everything she stole, ending up with more than 70% of the assets while I became essentially homeless, renting furnished rooms in basements for a few months at a time, sleeping on couches or in later years staying with my girlfriend while paying out most of my salary to my ex. I borrowed vehicles from family to see my son since she refused to drive him. For awhile I had supervised visits in McDonalds.

          The good news is my SS has been done for a few years and while I will never be able to afford a house or retire, I have a normal standard of living again. I rent a townhouse, a own car and I still have access to my son in spite of her efforts.

          Personally I think CS table amounts are much too high. My ex collects close to 50% of her income from CS and child benefits. To me this just illustrates that CS is almost entirely being paid for her benefit, not his. She remains single but has a single family home and a new car. She doesn't work outside the home because she doesn't have to or want to. Her custody of our child and access to my paycheque keeps her confortable enough.

          She was a self proclaimed feminist, determined to be a strong, independent career oriented woman. But two university degrees later (paid for 100% by her parents), she walked away from her pension, benefits and a great salary from the school board to remain a permanent SAHM (paid for 50% by me, some by her parents).

          Just re-affirming what I said. You can marry a woman with good prospects and earning potential and still end up a chump due to how the system works.

          So your ex is being supported by primarily by her parents and you pay child support.

          Presumably you are living with someone who subsidizes you? Perhaps the person you are living with receives CS or SS from an ex? or...... he/she is working and contributing jointly to your current living situation?

          One big circle.

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by FightingForFamily View Post
            Arabian: My former spouse was out of the workforce for only 2 years total, for maternity leave and stress leave. I paid full SS and CS for half the length of the marriage, which corresponded with school starting. It's done now. She planned the divorce for about a year and then stole everything from the bank, changed the locks and tried to have me arrested as a sexual predator. She also ended up keeping everything she stole, ending up with more than 70% of the assets while I became essentially homeless, renting furnished rooms in basements for a few months at a time, sleeping on couches or in later years staying with my girlfriend while paying out most of my salary to my ex. I borrowed vehicles from family to see my son since she refused to drive him. For awhile I had supervised visits in McDonalds.

            The good news is my SS has been done for a few years and while I will never be able to afford a house or retire, I have a normal standard of living again. I rent a townhouse, a own car and I still have access to my son in spite of her efforts.

            Personally I think CS table amounts are much too high. My ex collects close to 50% of her income from CS and child benefits. To me this just illustrates that CS is almost entirely being paid for her benefit, not his. She remains single but has a single family home and a new car. She doesn't work outside the home because she doesn't have to or want to. Her custody of our child and access to my paycheque keeps her confortable enough.

            She was a self proclaimed feminist, determined to be a strong, independent career oriented woman. But two university degrees later (paid for 100% by her parents), she walked away from her pension, benefits and a great salary from the school board to remain a permanent SAHM (paid for 50% by me, some by her parents).

            Just re-affirming what I said. You can marry a woman with good prospects and earning potential and still end up a chump due to how the system works.
            Our definitions of financial independence are different. A financially independent woman doesn't go on "stress leave", they go on vacation and get back at 'er.

            A financially independent woman is someone who can survive on her own under any circumstance life may throw at them. Using all resources they possibly can to scrape together enough to get through the month.

            I have chronic illness, never had a sick leave, ever. If I had to go on sick leave, I'd find ways to make ends meet.

            You married someone who appeared to be financially independent not someone who is. Big difference.

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by FightingForFamily View Post
              More amusingly, your ex was not financially responsible. At least you had the freedom to leave. Were you ordered to keep paying his bills so he could continue his irresponsible spending after you split? I mean, you supported his bad habits while you were together. So it's totally fair you should continue to subsidize his lifestyle since he was used to it and you were OK with it when you were together.

              You said you didn't get a chunk of equalization to make up for your loss during the relationship. The reality is spousal support is the OPPOSITE of this. You would be forced to continue paying for his needs, not compensated for your losses.
              The point of my example is that we all take economic hits if we marry the wrong people. Marriage is a risky business, moneywise. I don't pay spousal support because my ex has no case for spousal support, but I did take a hit during divorce. We make mistakes - it's better to own them than to perseverate on how unfair the system is. Marrying someone with drastically different financial capacities is like buying a house on a floodplain - when it eventually gets washed away, you may not be happy with the result, but you can't say it had nothing to do with your own choices.

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by arabian View Post
                So your ex is being supported by primarily by her parents and you pay child support.

                Presumably you are living with someone who subsidizes you? Perhaps the person you are living with receives CS or SS from an ex? or...... he/she is working and contributing jointly to your current living situation?

                One big circle.
                Hilariously my new partner is also a support PAYOR.

                So as a couple despite having multiple children we get zero benefits in terms of subsidies, tax breaks, support, etc. All we do is pay and pay and pay.

                We often joke that we should get her knocked up by someone successful so we could finally have enough income to have a house by receiving some CS back instead of always paying it out.

                I wish it would be "one big circle" instead of us supporting two drains on society.

                Comment


                • #68
                  @FightingForFamily

                  Look at this way if her parents are paying for her to stay home they are subsidizing a full-time parent for your kid so that isn't a bad thing.

                  However, you should seek to impute income to her based on her lifestyle. It is VERY common, I can send you caselaw for that.

                  You basically do a reverse analysis of her lifestyle
                  -Hosing: 1200
                  -Car: 500
                  -etc...

                  Then convert that into taxable income and you ask a judge to impute that income to her.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
                    @FightingForFamily

                    Look at this way if her parents are paying for her to stay home they are subsidizing a full-time parent for your kid so that isn't a bad thing.

                    However, you should seek to impute income to her based on her lifestyle. It is VERY common, I can send you caselaw for that.

                    You basically do a reverse analysis of her lifestyle
                    -Hosing: 1200
                    -Car: 500
                    -etc...

                    Then convert that into taxable income and you ask a judge to impute that income to her.

                    I agree with Links17 - I too have seen this done (on cases posted on CanLii).

                    Comment


                    • #70
                      I mentioned earlier I finished paying my spousal support a few years ago, so imputing income at this point wouldn't change anything. I don't have shared custody - which was my choice at the time.

                      I don't object to paying child support but as my income has gone up over the years, I keep adjusting the CS higher and higher each year and it's getting kind of ridiculous that it's to the point that it represents so much of her income at this point. I really don't feel that increasing it is doing anything additional to support my child. It's just putting extra money into her pocket for herself at this point.

                      This year I asked if she would be willing to forego having her support increased if I chose to move and use the money to rent a bigger home so my son could have his own bedroom instead of sleeping on the floor or sharing a bedroom.

                      She completely refused. She's entitled to it, but it just shows where her priorities are.

                      Comment


                      • #71
                        Originally posted by FightingForFamily View Post
                        I mentioned earlier I finished paying my spousal support a few years ago, so imputing income at this point wouldn't change anything. I don't have shared custody - which was my choice at the time.

                        I don't object to paying child support but as my income has gone up over the years, I keep adjusting the CS higher and higher each year and it's getting kind of ridiculous that it's to the point that it represents so much of her income at this point. I really don't feel that increasing it is doing anything additional to support my child. It's just putting extra money into her pocket for herself at this point.

                        This year I asked if she would be willing to forego having her support increased if I chose to move and use the money to rent a bigger home so my son could have his own bedroom instead of sleeping on the floor or sharing a bedroom.

                        She completely refused. She's entitled to it, but it just shows where her priorities are.
                        No shared custody a "gender neutral" excuse to be fleeced. Get shared custody and keep them in daycare all the time, it's what all the cool kids do.

                        Comment


                        • #72
                          Originally posted by FightingForFamily View Post
                          I mentioned earlier I finished paying my spousal support a few years ago, so imputing income at this point wouldn't change anything. I don't have shared custody - which was my choice at the time.

                          I don't object to paying child support but as my income has gone up over the years, I keep adjusting the CS higher and higher each year and it's getting kind of ridiculous that it's to the point that it represents so much of her income at this point. I really don't feel that increasing it is doing anything additional to support my child. It's just putting extra money into her pocket for herself at this point.

                          This year I asked if she would be willing to forego having her support increased if I chose to move and use the money to rent a bigger home so my son could have his own bedroom instead of sleeping on the floor or sharing a bedroom.

                          She completely refused. She's entitled to it, but it just shows where her priorities are.
                          I have a hard time with the fact you are all about how bad her priorities are when she refuses to accept a lower CS amount when you made the "choice" not to have shared custody. What was your priorities when you made the choice not to go for shared custody?

                          Comment


                          • #73
                            Being an NCP is not free. He should still have his own space in my home and some of his own things. The CSG does not allow any room in the NCP's budget for a single dollar to be spent on the child, because it was designed with the assumption that the NCP does not even have access to the child. I do have access, my child has special needs, and it's not fair he doesn't have his own space at my house.

                            I never had a "choice" of shared custody. Like most men, no one is going to offer you the choice. You can dedicate your life and spend your sanity, physical and mental health and entire financial future for the rest of your life to fighting for a CHANCE at it.

                            I could go on and explain how my ex's tactics kept me from being able to even see my child for months let alone get shared custody, but in the end I had to choose between trying to live my life and losing my life to the family court system.

                            I could end up another devastated statistic, broken by the court system or dead by suicide, or I could try and pick up the pieces and move on.

                            Comment


                            • #74
                              i sympathize without the support of friends and family would have been tough.

                              Comment


                              • #75
                                I'm a little late to this entertaining discussion but will add my 2 cents:

                                I am also a payer. Long term, traditional marriage. Ex has a university education and was working full time when we married. Definitely not a gold digger. However, over time things change. Ex had every opportunity to work after kids started school but didn't. I encouraged but no dice.

                                Now that the marriage is over, ex gets half the marital assets, that's fair.

                                Spousal support is indefinite and more than generous. I'm told that I have responsibilities, I have to work to pay SS. No early retirement for me. I can't change positions for a lower paying one without taking a further financial hit. If I don't pay the full SS, the full power of the state will come down on me. My only out is to become disabled or die. When I retire, I will be on living on CPP and OAS and some small amount of savings. The marriage may be over but financially it continues indefinitely. I have all the responsibility and no rights.

                                On the other hand, my ex is now retired, with a full pension (paid by me), and never has to work a day in her life. She hit the jackpot. She gets all the rights and zero responsibility.

                                The Divorce Act lists some of the reasons for SS as being,
                                (c) relieve any economic hardship of the spouses arising from the breakdown of the marriage; and
                                (d) in so far as practicable, promote the economic self-sufficiency of each spouse within a reasonable period of time.

                                For practical purposes, due to the divorce, my ex is now immune from any economic hardship, I get to take care of that.
                                (d) is a joke as it is almost impossible to enforce and "reasonable period of time" is "indefinite." She has absolutely no reason to try and become self-sufficient.

                                So, in my situation, I can't help but agree that SS is a form of forced private welfare. I can see no other way of looking at it.

                                Sure, I can take the blame for this but the system is rotten by design. Financially speaking, the less you do in the marriage, the more you get. The harder you work, the more you pay. The longer you are married, the longer and more you pay.

                                I would counsel others first of all, don't marry. If you do decide to marry, and your spouse ever stops working or doesn't return to the job market after kids start school, realize that their is a knife poised over your head that can drop any time. Nothing you can do about it. And as time goes on the knife becomes bigger and sharper. At that point your screwed.

                                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