Enough already

[shellshocked22]

Hey Beentheretwice:

I hear ya ! Couldn't agree more my friend. It's sad both of us will be severely punished for being stupid enough to marry the wrong girl.....

[BeenThereTwice]

The worst of it is.. when I look back.. ALL the warning signs were there and I just didn't pay attention to them.

But I don't regret my two daughters. Not even a little.

[shellshocked22]

Hindsight is a wonderful thing, isn't it ?

Sad that due to the financial debt she can put you in, you may very well have less time to spend with your kids. Of course, all the law is concerned about is wringing every last dime out of Dads (in my opinion....) At the end of the day, the courts only really care about the $$$$.

[LostFather]

I'm a bit late in the thread and it's already devolved into trolling but just wanted to add my two cents. When I first joined this forum there was a post that made a good point about SS, especially with respect to stay at home moms. I'm not talking a mom who chose to stay home for 25 to life, but mom's who stay home for 3-4 years until the kids are in school.

When the family, as a couple, made this decision, they already paid for the lost income. Their family had reduced income, they couldn't buy nice things, go on vacations. This decision already affected the standard of living of BOTH parties. They shared in the costs of the lost income at that time.

Why should one person have to pay for it all a SECOND time?

I can see in some circumstances where a person is out of the work force for life essentially and it has a significant impact on their earning potential, lost pension, etc. But wait... even in those situations they are still entitled to half of the pension that WAS accumulated by the working partner.

All I know is that when the dust settled after settling on finances, paying CS and SS that my spouse has ended up with more disposable income than she ever had when she WAS working, even more than we had while she was staying at home and I was working. She stayed home for 3 years and she is walking away with almost 100k, tax free, all told. Her salary before children was 34k but taxable.

Oh yes, and she doesn't have to do anything or go to work anymore, to make more money than she ever did in her life.

Absolutely.

[LostFather]

My experience is that when a parent feels entitled to $$$$ this spills over on to the kids. And at the end of the day what does this teach them? I know that my step kids will have a very difficult time on their own. They have had everything handed to them. And mom does this because she currently CAN. With her income, her husbands income and child support - there is a large pool of money to take fromm! Now, step dad is contemplating leaving, mom loses in trial, she is tighening the reins and the kids are FREAKING. How dare she not give them money for.......

We need to teach our kids that yes, they can have nice things. But that someone is working hard from them to have those things. And that these things will not always be there for them because one day they will have to go out into the real world...and when they go it is going to be one of their hardest life lessons. There was a study in the Star yesterday that most young people expect to earn $90,000 within a few years of graduating from post-secondary. How many people on this forum earn that much? Kids are disllusioned. And it is our fault as their parents. We have done them a disservice.

I want my kids to be happy. I want them to live in a nice house (doesn't need to be a big, expensive house). I want them to have clean clothes...hell even new clothes! I want them to be able to do activities and to go on school trips. I also want them to get a job (when they are old enough to), pay for a portion of their schooling, buy their own car, pay their own cell phone. Because they will be better PEOPLE because of it. I think that we forget that we are raising kids that will one day be ADULTS.
My kids will respect what they have. They will APPRECIATE what they have.

For those of us on here that really understand this...we must lock arms and support one another and not get taken in by the entitled ones. Because really...at the end of the day we all know that it isn't money, the big house, the nanny, nice cars, etc. It's how we choose to live each day. By appreciating the little things. Knowing that we can lay our head on our pillow at night knowing that we are good people defined by love, not by money.

Bravo! Well said. Now if we just could get the entitled, politicians (whom seem to be entitles these days) and the family law (muti -billion dollar) industry to listen. That would be something.

[WorkingDAD]

My experience is that when a parent feels entitled to $$$$ this spills over on to the kids. And at the end of the day what does this teach them? I know that my step kids will have a very difficult time on their own. They have had everything handed to them. And mom does this because she currently CAN. With her income, her husbands income and child support - there is a large pool of money to take fromm! Now, step dad is contemplating leaving, mom loses in trial, she is tighening the reins and the kids are FREAKING. How dare she not give them money for.......

We need to teach our kids that yes, they can have nice things. But that someone is working hard from them to have those things. And that these things will not always be there for them because one day they will have to go out into the real world...and when they go it is going to be one of their hardest life lessons. There was a study in the Star yesterday that most young people expect to earn $90,000 within a few years of graduating from post-secondary. How many people on this forum earn that much? Kids are disllusioned. And it is our fault as their parents. We have done them a disservice.

I want my kids to be happy. I want them to live in a nice house (doesn't need to be a big, expensive house). I want them to have clean clothes...hell even new clothes! I want them to be able to do activities and to go on school trips. I also want them to get a job (when they are old enough to), pay for a portion of their schooling, buy their own car, pay their own cell phone. Because they will be better PEOPLE because of it. I think that we forget that we are raising kids that will one day be ADULTS.
My kids will respect what they have. They will APPRECIATE what they have.

For those of us on here that really understand this...we must lock arms and support one another and not get taken in by the entitled ones. Because really...at the end of the day we all know that it isn't money, the big house, the nanny, nice cars, etc. It's how we choose to live each day. By appreciating the little things. Knowing that we can lay our head on our pillow at night knowing that we are good people defined by love, not by money.

I can put my signature under this!

[ddol1]

Just to polish off my earlier post. It is possible to have some entitlement and not be looking like a"------" to anyone. Assumption is living tha lavish lifestyle of the "rich and the famous" while dad scrapes off the sraps of life. How about the couple who led a simple life. No vacation in 20 years. Energy was put into securing a stable home where the goal of our version of rich was to treat the family with pizza when we wanted to.

Yes there is so much of the kids out there with the expectation that life will be handed to them - our kids understand what a dollar is. Our kids did not get the designer anything unless they worked for it, saved for it, we gave them the amount that would get them a good pair of shoes but it didn't keep up with the rat race that is out there for sure. OUr kids went to work, our son had his first part time job at the grocery when he was 12 in Calgary. Crazy? I thought so but he was determined - the rule grades in school were not to fall, not even a little. All three kids did this because they wanted to. Each time we saw thier grades improve - drastically and they stayed there!

So back to support - we worked for what we did have. Needing support will not ruin the kids. Support to me is the right to have a roof, be able to eat. Vacations in the sun - I highly doubt it but this is how we lived while married. It will noot change because we are getting divorced. Hope is the kids come to realize that mom and dad are going to find a way that lets each of us carry on in thier own way. Question remains wether this can happen without world war 3 but in the end this is about simple survival.

It is possible to be entitled and not screw the other so bad that they have nothing - for us I believe that fair is an equitable division of our incomes going forward. Nobody wins in divorce - in our case it is going to be hard for both of us. This I am sure.

[ddol1]

Just a sensitive topic from the other perspective:

Sorry I forgot Pensions! With the end of the marriage there was the assumption that there are great pensions in the wings - I could only wish! In my case - yes there WAS a pension - three actually. The first two pensions, and FYI the first I ever saw the paper work was only a few months ago when I stumbled on it looking for bank records, each supplied in a three page very plain English document....... very strongly worded to accept the deffered option.

After she had worked ten years she had to stop work as we raised three kids because daycare was more than her takehome. Pension choice was, and again, she did this all on her own (she told me that her choice was take 14K now or get 18K when she retired - as in a one time payment to create a RRIF and a small monthly income) So simple, she had the choice of taking 14K now plus another 4K in a locked in rrsp or leave it in the defined pension plan and recieve 14K per year starting at age 60 for life.

So naturally by the tone of this post, her choice was take 18k 20 years ago and invest it wisely in an rrsp or accept the for life pension at age 60 gauranteed for life plus when she retired (she worked in the airline business) her package included free airfare anywhere in the world for her and any other passanger anytime, as often as she wished.......(lunch in Paris anyone??) I looked at the package she was given and i spoke to her current pension people just to make sure I understood. Payable for life at age 60 means in very simple terms..... 14K per year to age 90 (this I was told is what is used when doing the actuary thing to determine value of the pension in dollars) so in very simple terms 14.5K x 30 years is $435,000.

We were lucky because life had it that she got the chance to return to that place after the kids got into school which would add another 90+K to the equation (oh and now her offer was now payable at age 55) and for the third she now works for the provincial government and the pension is the best I ever saw. Oh I forgot to mention, 20 years ago, she chose the 18K to her rrsp and I can tell you if her RRSP was worth - think of what a bankrupcy offer to the creditors might be and you would be getting 2nd degree burns!............ It took me a while to get over what in fact, never was, and I am actually thankful that I am now entitled to a share of the third small pension of maybe $85 a month one day. I think at that time it will be like a million! It may be the difference in my eating or not. I am thankfull that should I make it that long, it may just be the difference in my being able to eat or not and I will take that!

So back to entitled - there isn't always a nice pension to share. No pot of gold to open when we hit 65. Am I entitled to a fair support settlement that takes both of our incomes into consideration and having an agreement that will allow both of us to at least survive? Is it fair to have either spouse live in a "cardboard box" in a few years? Or does entitlement to get much needed support for one have to mean injustice for the other?

Just a sensitive topic from the other perspective.

[Pursuinghappiness]

To me accepting SS is living off someone elses dime and equal to being on welfare. SS is never appropriate. The other person is out there pounding the pavement while the one collecting is at home on couch eating bonbons and the kids are off to school. I can see the equality there for sure.

Are you f'ing kidding me?!? I stayed at home the first year with both of my newborns and never once did I stay on the couch and eat f'ing bonbons. Actually going back to work full-time after my 2nd child was a hell of a lot easier than the work I did at home.

The price of a mom: $138,095 - MSN Money


You are seriously a misogynistic prick and if you believe that women (or men) that stay home with children and run a household do nothing all day.

Good for your ex getting away from you...hope she took you for all you're worth...which isn't a whole hell of a lot....you're pathetic.

[WorkingDAD]

Are you f'ing kidding me?!? I stayed at home the first year with both of my newborns and never once did I stay on the couch and eat f'ing bonbons. Actually going back to work full-time after my 2nd child was a hell of a lot easier than the work I did at home.

The price of a mom: $138,095 - MSN Money


You are seriously a misogynistic prick and if you believe that women (or men) that stay home with children and run a household do nothing all day.

Good for your ex getting away from you...hope she took you for all you're worth...which isn't a whole hell of a lot....you're pathetic.

Hey before writing insulting messages at least make an effort to read what was that about ...

As for "The price of a mom: $138,095". Shold court use it as amount to impute income?

[Pursuinghappiness]

I did read it..the guy's a prick.

And since homemakers will never get an actual paycheck for their contributions to the marriage...you can use the figure for whatever you want. If being a homemaker was something that stay-at-home moms or dads could actually get paid for...I would suggest that spousal support would be unnecessary.

[WorkingDAD]

I did read it..the guy's a prick.

looks like you did not bother to really understand what was discussion about ...
But you do not really interested in it right?

And since homemakers will never get an actual paycheck for their contributions to the marriage...you can use the figure for whatever you want. If being a homemaker was something that stay-at-home moms or dads could actually get paid for...I would suggest that spousal support would be unnecessary.

this number is total nonsense... and BTW did you notice title "Price of mom" not stay home parent?

we can argue whole day but I do not believe we will go anywhere with it...
You have to be open minded to accept different point of view and argue base on arguments not just what you feel is RIGHT.

[HammerDad]

Looking at the jobs that were accreditted to stay at home parents, I cannot agree with some of them:

housekeeper - Yes, for sure

day care center teacher - Not sure of the "teacher" reference. Maybe ECE worker.

cook - for sure

computer operator - not sure how this in anyway relates to being a stay at home parent

laundry machine operator - for sure, if they are the sole person who does the laundry.

janitor - Not sure how this can be in there, as they already have housekeeper as the first item. To me, this seems repetive

facilities manager - not sure what they equate as a "facilities manager" or what duties they associate with it that couldn't be covered under each of the other positions

van driver - maybe a taxi driver or courier? But yeah, I can see this.

CEO - You've got to be kidding me.....it is the assumption that the the SAHP is the manager of the household...OK, maybe I see that. But then lets equate it to something that would be an equivalent, like maybe President (pushing it) or Manager (more likely) of a small mom and pop company with assets not exceeding $100k per annum.....I bet if you do that, that annual salary is drastically reduced.

psychologist - again, you've got to be kidding me... Yeah, I understand we have to understand feelings and stuff, but that is something that EVERYONE who works ANYWHERE has to deal with, and they don't get credit for it.

I am not here to rag on SAHP's in anyway. I am more taking aim at the study that tries to compare apples with oranges.

[WorkingDAD]

Looking at the jobs that were accreditted to stay at home parents, I cannot agree with some of them:

housekeeper - Yes, for sure

day care center teacher - Not sure of the "teacher" reference. Maybe ECE worker.

cook - for sure

computer operator - not sure how this in anyway relates to being a stay at home parent

laundry machine operator - for sure, if they are the sole person who does the laundry.

janitor - Not sure how this can be in there, as they already have housekeeper as the first item. To me, this seems repetive

facilities manager - not sure what they equate as a "facilities manager" or what duties they associate with it that couldn't be covered under each of the other positions

van driver - maybe a taxi driver or courier? But yeah, I can see this.

CEO - You've got to be kidding me.....it is the assumption that the the SAHP is the manager of the household...OK, maybe I see that. But then lets equate it to something that would be an equivalent, like maybe President (pushing it) or Manager (more likely) of a small mom and pop company with assets not exceeding $100k per annum.....I bet if you do that, that annual salary is drastically reduced.

psychologist - again, you've got to be kidding me... Yeah, I understand we have to understand feelings and stuff, but that is something that EVERYONE who works ANYWHERE has to deal with, and they don't get credit for it.

I am not here to rag on SAHP's in anyway. I am more taking aim at the study that tries to compare apples with oranges.

well said HammerDad... And let not forget to work and get paid for almost everything from a list you have to have appropriate education (in some positions university) and in half of cases experience.

I meant common nobody saying that stay at home is doing nothing. Yes it hard work but let be honest here if you do not have education or can not find a job and decided to stay home for 10-25 years you can not say after it worse 138k a year. And original post was as far as I understand not about stay home parent doing nothing but stay home doing nothing and receiving spousal support when kids in school etc...

I wish I can stay home for at least a year and get paid that

EDIT:
I also would like to add than when one spouse stay home with kids (what s not always the case BTW) and other working that spouse who stay home already paid by other spouse providing for him house, food, closes and etc. So questions remains:

1. Why that other spouse have to pay one more time by way of Spousal Support.
2. Why the fact that one spouse already provided for all the above to other spouse not included in spousal support calculations?

[Pursuinghappiness]

looks like you did not bother to really understand what was discussion about ...
But you do not really interested in it right?

No idea what you're spewing about. I'm not the one with the comprehension problem, since If you actually read the thread, you'd notice that I posted a legitimate response to the OP on the first page that he responded to like a prick, hence I called him one.

this number is total nonsense... and BTW did you notice title "Price of mom" not stay home parent?

You can pull a 100 similar studies regarding stay-at-home "parents." The reason that that particular one mentions women is because it was linked to a women's site discussing SAHM's. Women have traditionally played that role more than men have...although things are changing. Frankly if family makes the decision that a man stays home and performs this task, he deserves and will be entitled to spousal support in the event of a divorce.

You have to be open minded to accept different point of view and argue base on arguments not just what you feel is RIGHT.

LOL...everyone on this forum thinks they're RIGHT..including you. Get over yourself...I can argue and respond to whatever I please, however I please. I can also, like everyone else here, reject whatever I think is a waste of my time. Welcome to the free world.

This is just another example of gender-biased nonsense on this forum. I can name a hundred financial structures that serve a purpose that people sometimes/often abuse...however, that doesn't negate that that spousal support was created and often exists for a reason.