Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is water wet or dry?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #31
    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
    One of the problems with SS is that while you have the choice (talking about long-term marriages) to not work and "just collect" SS your spouse is obligated to continue supporting you.

    It is a little weird because when married you provided each other services but at the end of the marriage he still has to provide you services and realistically speaking you can openly not make any serious attempt for work + you are pretty much "retired from marriage" and you will get CC for minimum half the length of the marriage.


    I think you have to remember that many people do not have the choice to not work after a long-term marriage rather they cannot. Rather than have these people who cannot be self-sufficient rely on publicly-funded welfare, the spouse is rightfully held responsible.

    You have to look at a long-term marriage as a business arrangement. One person provides home/child care services and the other works outside of the home. This is mutually agreed upon so that some day they will both benefit and retire comfortably. When a long-term relationship ends the courts look to equalize things so both come out of the marriage on equal footing. SS often ends or is substantially reduced when the party who works out of the home retires or shows a substantial change in circumstances. It is important to also consider that not all long-term marriages result in a massive matrimonial estate and often people do not receive any money/assets/homes at the end of the marriage. In my situation my ex quickly drained the company assets into family and g/f's accounts and then went into personal bankruptcy. There was little to 'divide' and I was instead left with all of the company debt while my ex went on to merely start a new company with bank accounts under family and g/f's name.

    My situation is certainly not unique. I am fortunate that I have the ability to support myself. Others aren't so fortunate. I may be entitled to indefinite support but I certainly cannot rely upon it. My ex looks for any and every opportunity to not pay me thus my being dragged to court 9 times in the past 4 years. I am certainly not a financial winner by any stretch of the imagination. My ex told me at the end of our marriage that he would see me a "bag lady on the street." With that in mind I believe he will continue to take me to court indefinitely. This is my reality.

    So before labelling everyone who receives SS as undeserving, please pause and realize that every situation is different and every SS Order is based on its own unique facts and circumstances.

    Comment


    • #32
      I haven't had to deal with custody but I can speak on the best interest of adult children, and although they do not involve CS they are still children and they still have emotions, needs and feelings.
      There has been no battle for how we will split the time with them. Their father has seen my eldest son 4 times in 5 years, once at my son's wedding. Not a red cent, has been given to him, not a birthday gift, a holiday gift, or a dinner.
      The youngest son has seen his father twice. Once at his brother's wedding and the other time is when my son decided after that visit never to speak to him as my x lied to his face and when my son asked him why he is lying, he told him that, "It is not of his f---en business", also may I add not a red cent, not a card, nada.
      My opinion, the best interest of the children is just that. The children including my daughter-in-law knows that there is nothing I mean nothing in this world that ranks a priority over them.
      Yes I receive a obscene amount of money every month and trust me that half goes to CRA, another huge chunk is paying tuition, housing and food for one son and the married son and his wife are treated with respect and lots of kindness. What a pleasure it is for me. As far as my travels and gucci, they don't exist and I have never been happier and prouder.
      My food and transportation and house costs are funded by my everyday job.
      I pray for SS till my passing and it will spread around: CRA, children and charity.
      My SS was good not only for me but my country as my x was paying taxes on an income that was less than what he is paying me. So now because of the disclosure not only am I receiving a substantial amount of money, so is our country as income taxes are now being paid.

      Comment


      • #33
        That's a very good point. CRA is a major beneficiary in my situation as well. I'm merely the conduit. I certainly do not have anywhere near the lifestyle I had while I was married.

        My ex and his family have excommunicated our son as well. I guess that's his version of a "clean break."

        Comment


        • #34
          Originally posted by arabian View Post
          I think you have to remember that many people do not have the choice to not work after a long-term marriage rather they cannot. Rather than have these people who cannot be self-sufficient rely on publicly-funded welfare, the spouse is rightfully held responsible.
          People in long term marriages that were SAHM do not even need to look for jobs. They can pretty much collect SS, travel, live the life and it will DEFINITELY go on for half the marriage.

          Originally posted by arabian View Post
          You have to look at a long-term marriage as a business arrangement. One person provides home/child care services and the other works outside of the home. This is mutually agreed upon so that some day they will both benefit and retire comfortably. When a long-term relationship ends the courts look to equalize things so both come out of the marriage on equal footing.
          No they don't they look to ensure "financially" both parties are "taken" care of because at the end you have:
          Payor = works & gets part of the money
          recipient = does nothing & gets part of the money

          Works vs Does Nothing is a big difference


          Originally posted by arabian View Post
          SS often ends or is substantially reduced when the party who works out of the home retires or shows a substantial change in circumstances.
          Retiring is really restricted by judges in this case


          Originally posted by arabian View Post
          It is important to also consider that not all long-term marriages result in a massive matrimonial estate and often people do not receive any money/assets/homes at the end of the marriage. In my situation my ex quickly drained the company assets into family and g/f's accounts and then went into personal bankruptcy. There was little to 'divide' and I was instead left with all of the company debt while my ex went on to merely start a new company with bank accounts under family and g/f's name.
          You can't use the example of somebody who is committing fraud to show me the system is "unfair". If he didn't do that an you split all the business assets then you would have gotten 50% of everything an 50% of eveything new while yuo chill an he works (not saying this is fair, but it is reality)

          My situation is certainly not unique. I am fortunate that I have the ability to support myself. Others aren't so fortunate. I may be entitled to indefinite support but I certainly cannot rely upon it. My ex looks for any and every opportunity to not pay me thus my being dragged to court 9 times in the past 4 years. I am certainly not a financial winner by any stretch of the imagination. My ex told me at the end of our marriage that he would see me a "bag lady on the street." With that in mind I believe he will continue to take me to court indefinitely. This is my reality.
          There are measures to deal with this (costs etc...) once again no hardship on you. The intent is the same -he is forced to work and support you indefinitely according to law/

          So before labelling everyone who receives SS as undeserving, please pause and realize that every situation is different and every SS Order is based on its own unique facts and circumstances.
          It isn't about undeserving... Its about one party being "divorced" while the other really isn't because the breadwinner's obligation to the SAHM doesn't end when the marriage end but the SAHM's obligation does end.

          My point through all this is that NO RATIONAL PERSON when presented with this legal arrangement would say - "Yes, enter this legal agreement" which can be cancelled by either party at anytime for any reason without notice and no matter what You pay the penalty and no matter what you're under the thumb of an employee of the state (the judge) who would prefer you pay SS than your ex go on welfare.

          I recognize SAHMs would be on the street otherwise and I'm not sure what the "ideal" solution is but since the divorce rate is so high there should perhaps be SAHM divorce pension plan.

          Comment


          • #35
            People in long term marriages that were SAHM do not even need to look for jobs. They can pretty much collect SS, travel, live the life and it will DEFINITELY go on for half the marriage.


            OH REALLY!!!! Where did you get your statistics? I LOOKED FOR WORK, AM EMPLOYED!!!!!
            I can pretty much collect SS, NOT travel, live a Very different life than I lived and HOPEFULLY it will go on TILL DEATH DO US PART!!!!!!

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by Links17 View Post
              One of the problems with SS is that while you have the choice (talking about long-term marriages) to not work and "just collect" SS your spouse is obligated to continue supporting you.

              It is a little weird because when married you provided each other services but at the end of the marriage he still has to provide you services and realistically speaking you can openly not make any serious attempt for work + you are pretty much "retired from marriage" and you will get CC for minimum half the length of the marriage.

              It really isn't fair, and I am so happy my ex-wife who would have been a career SAHM is now on the curb and has to work 9-5 like me and support the kids as well. I understand the losses sustained by SAHM but SS is not a fair solution, I wish there was soemthign better.
              If people consider it a job (being at SAHM) then maybe instead of SS treat it like a job and just have a severance package like when you are let go from a company. Not sure how to figure out the terms though.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                If people consider it a job (being at SAHM) then maybe instead of SS treat it like a job and just have a severance package like when you are let go from a company. Not sure how to figure out the terms though.

                That is exactly what a lump sum settlement is,, the problem being in my particular case, my x didnt have enough cash on hand to give me serverance hence SS on a monthly basis.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
                  If people consider it a job (being at SAHM) then maybe instead of SS treat it like a job and just have a severance package like when you are let go from a company. Not sure how to figure out the terms though.
                  Not only severance, but also repayment of the value of their contribution during the entire length of the marriage.

                  re: botc - perhaps parents who wish to be treated equally on dissolution of a marriage with respect to access, should start parenting equally from the moment of birth of their children. I haven't seen that happening in many of the situations posted here. It's disgusting, actually, how any parent feels that they only need to step up to the parenting plate at the moment of separation, to save a few bucks.
                  Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by mcdreamy View Post
                    Not only severance, but also repayment of the value of their contribution during the entire length of the marriage.

                    re: botc - perhaps parents who wish to be treated equally on dissolution of a marriage with respect to access, should start parenting equally from the moment of birth of their children. I haven't seen that happening in many of the situations posted here. It's disgusting, actually, how any parent feels that they only need to step up to the parenting plate at the moment of separation, to save a few bucks.
                    but didn't they get the value of their contribution by having a roof over their heads, bills paid, food on the table etc?? They never forked out money so what is repaid? Does that mean the one who paid all that should now get half back? They also got to witness lots of firsts if there are kids involved. Does the supporting spouse get compensated for missing stuff like that as they had to work to pay bills etc?

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      careful not to generalize too much.

                      Many people contribute financially to marriage by way of contributing personal inheritances to family coffers.

                      Many people contribute by giving up prosperous careers to stay home, maintain home etc. This is a mutual decision. Courts recognize this as valuable contribution as part of the marriage partnership. Both are working to prosper and retire well in the end. After a lengthy marriage the person who stayed at home can often not resume their career simply because they are no longer 'hot commodities' in the job market. The courts recognize this.

                      It is simplistic and unrealistic to think people give up a career, and are properly compensated, for food and roof over their heads.

                      If I knew now what i knew 10 or 15 yrs ago I would have left the marriage. My inheritance would be intact. I would be in my 40's and not too old to go back to school and resume my career. When you're in your 50's, nearing 60, it is an entirely different matter.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        If you want to be treated equally after the marriage ends - be treated equally during the marriage. Get the education, get the job. Get a career. It really is possible to raise a family and work.

                        For every action there is a consequence. If you choose to invest in xxxx and not in yyyy, yyyy will suffer. If you choose to not invest in education/a career there will be consequences.

                        Critically analyzing Arabian's words: If you GAVE UP YOUR CAREER - why are you being compensated? By your own words you made an informed decision.

                        Ah, it's the 21st century - with a little hard work and elbow grease you can have it all - a career, family and never ever be in this predicament.

                        #feminismrocks!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Originally posted by Serene View Post
                          If you want to be treated equally after the marriage ends - be treated equally during the marriage. Get the education, get the job. Get a career. It really is possible to raise a family and work.

                          For every action there is a consequence. If you choose to invest in xxxx and not in yyyy, yyyy will suffer. If you choose to not invest in education/a career there will be consequences.

                          Critically analyzing Arabian's words: If you GAVE UP YOUR CAREER - why are you being compensated? By your own words you made an informed decision.

                          Ah, it's the 21st century - with a little hard work and elbow grease you can have it all - a career, family and never ever be in this predicament.

                          #feminismrocks!
                          Totally agree with what you said.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            We can say this NOW, and I completely agree, but decades ago, marriage was structured differently. Women were supposed to give up their careers to raise the kids support the man's career, and in return, the man would support the family financially. If you didn't, you were often subject to a whole bunch of criticism. Just because this view of marriage is outdated (and rightly so) doesn't mean that all marriages like that have been eliminated. Some of them may still end in divorce, and leave a woman with no way to support herself if there is no SS.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              I disagree. Its a choice.

                              It was a choice then. And it's a choice now.

                              Moreover, SS is treated the same then as it is now.

                              So your point is moot in my books.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                I disagree. Its a choice.

                                It was a choice then. And it's a choice now.

                                Moreover, SS is treated the same then as it is now.

                                So your point is moot in my books.
                                Really, - don't be so naive the conditions now are different from then.
                                SS is STILL in the process of changing it has change a lot over the last 30 years, moge, bracklow etc....



                                Momforever - look at jurisprudence SAHM can continue to stay home and get pai.

                                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