Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Why does SS depend on the quantum of CS?

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

  • #16
    Well if you have any brains you'd know BEFORE you have kids that if the future mother of your children doesn't have her own stash of cash, business or real estate assets, you would be responsible to pay her at the end of your marriage. I believe prenup agreements have been around for quite a long time. CS is a given but doesn't last forever. SS can last a lifetime though.

    In my case I lost several hundred thousand dollars as well as a house during my marriage. Any pity for me? No I bet not. The substantial SS that my ex has to pay me now pales in comparison with my losses.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
      ...

      Part of CS is to cover a roof over their head......
      Actually this is one aspect of CS that has been bothering me lately (though it does not effect me because the income disparity for my situation is not that great (currently anyway)).

      BUT the problem with this statement is that the CS recipient gets to KEEP the roof after the kids are gone and no longer need it. This is not fair - the CS payor is helping to BUY the CS recipient's house. This is a direct and specific benefit to the CS recipient, and not the children, and it is a form of SS, though it should not be.

      Comment


      • #18
        BillM: in your case it may work out that way but in many cases the CS recipient simply rents a place. Only person who benefits would be a landlord. You would be arguing on how the CS recipient decides to spend the CS (rent or purchase). Hopefully the CS recipient has a will and will leave the property to the children in the event of her untimely death?

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by arabian View Post
          Well if you have any brains you'd know BEFORE you have kids that if the future mother of your children doesn't have her own stash of cash, business or real estate assets, you would be responsible to pay her at the end of your marriage. I believe prenup agreements have been around for quite a long time. CS is a given but doesn't last forever. SS can last a lifetime though.
          Yes, pre-nups have been around for a long time, but they are not an easy topic to broach, nor will the majority of people respond in a positive fashion.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by HammerDad View Post
            Because it would be inappropriate and virtually impossible to cause each recipient parent to provide such accounting.

            It is believed that each parent will act in the best interests of the kids. And that the money the CP receives will benefit the children. To ask them to provide an accounting would be any annoying and onerous task which could be abused by controlling/manipulative/vindictive ex spouses.

            I pay c/s. I pay close to $600 a month in c/s. My kid is well clothed, fed and housed. She actually just got back from Disney with her mom, which I feel my c/s helped pay for and I feel good about it.
            Wouldn't it be better if you paid close to $500 a month with the understanding that you would put $100 a month aside to take you kid on a trip. You're paying for it anyway, why shouldn't you benefit from spending time at Disney with your kid? The child still benefits.

            There is definitely a threshold where cs goes from necessity to fringe benefit. Maybe it is something that needs to be addressed?

            I also have to agree with billm (though I've never thought of it until now). If the receiving spouse owns a house, then you are building capital for that spouse, and when the kids are gone, the spouse will be left holding the bag...bag of money that is. I wonder how that could be addressed.

            If I sound bitter, I should say that I have shared custody with 50/50 split. I have other problems to deal with right now (as my introductory post in this forum details) but once cs payments get in line to what they should be, our income will be close to equal and I am ok with that. Our kids won't benefit much from my cs. (my stbx spends more money on herself than the kids, she just got on a plane and jetted off somewhere tonight) but at least I will have some money to spend on the kids.

            Comment


            • #21
              Actually, one way to look at it is that when you have kids they tend to wear and tear the house.

              I have teenagers and my s tend to experiment and brake things and I had to spend significant amount in damages repairs.

              There are spike in spending like at begginining of school year, winter clothes. How many times they loose or brake things.

              There is no perfect senario, apperance can be misleading and it is easy to judge and critic where the money goes.

              I have the issue with the RESP as it is joint and being the one doing all the spending and having to show the bills before i can get his approval to withdraw any funds. I am telling you that it is a pain in the butt and although it is half mine, my word has no weight as both signatures are required to withdraw. Although there is plenny of fund to support D, he is limiting the fund to to penny of shool invoices.

              I try to get D to do her shopping with ex so he wouldn't have an issue with the spending but he was never available for that.

              I end up absorbing the additionnal expenses. There is no negotiation possible with my STBX.

              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