Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Unbelievable.... I nearly threw up!!!

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

  • Originally posted by Pursuinghappiness View Post
    I prefer the way it is today. People still choose marriage although they're often choosing it later in life to focus on university and career...which is a good thing.

    But more importantly, no one is forced to stay in a bad, unhappy marriage. That should never happen.

    CS simply guarantees that once a marriage is over, that the kids are still financially secure with both parents. Marriages end, parenting doesn't.

    I get paid offset CS for my youngest child...its not a huge amount of money because I have a career but I decide how I spend it on my kid. My ex never agreed with what I bought or saved for my children even before we divorced and wouldn't agree now. That never stopped from me from spending my money how I see fit. He's the type of guy that believes that kids should pay their own tuition because he did...I disagree. Now that we're divorced, his opinion only applies to his money...not to mine or to the money that the court designates to support our child.

    My kids are happier since we've divorced because no kid wants to live in a house with two unhappy, miserable parents. Divorced kids suffer when they have bitter, angry parents who can't move on in a healthy way after divorce and drag the children into their hate-filled disputes.

    Marriages aren't successful when they're long. Marriages are successful when they're happy and two people are getting their needs met. If that isn't happening and can't be fixed...people should get divorced. Marriage should never be a jail sentence in which a person is forced to stay when the other partner isn't meeting any behavior criteria.

    The parental obligation continues until the child is of age...whether or not the marriage ends, as it should. If you don't like the CS tables...you can voice your opinion to your MP or form an action group to try to change it. But the fact of the matter is that things aren't going to change that significantly. So if that's of extreme concern to the OP, then he shouldn't get married. He's not a good candidate. When I got separated, there was no shortage of marriage-minded men and his exemption from that pool won't affect the female population at all.

    Believe me, people will continue to get married...people will continue to have children...people will continue to get divorced...and the world will continue to turn. This thread is only interesting because the level of rage on the part of some of the posters is fun to watch.
    Great post

    Comment


    • OP, by his own admission, has never been married and has no children.

      I enjoy this forum because people write about their own personal experiences. There is much wisdom on this forum from people who have had to soldier it alone through the legal process.

      I agree with PH that the OP should perhaps date his own gender if women make him nauseated. Perhaps a men's only forum would be more suitable for his antiquated views.

      Comment


      • Hey Concerned, its true - it can be a racket....

        A good piece of advice somebody once mentioned is
        #1 don't marry anybody poorer than you so you won't have this problem,
        #2 Be an involved father
        #3 Don't let her be a SAHM

        And as PH said - guys looking to bang a vulnerable desperate divorced mom are a dime a dozen so no shortage there.

        You can move to Quebec to escape SS and the CS is much better actually in general. I believe also here if you don't marry and the mom has a baby it can never be "in loco parentis".

        Comment


        • guys looking to bang a vulnerable desperate divorced mom are a dime a dozen so no shortage there.
          Links, you spend so much time and energy trying to bash women.

          But all it does is reveal who and what you are. Your ex really did a number on you.

          Comment


          • Trust me, not one cent has been given to my children since the divorce. He told my eldest son, "Too bad for you, I am selfish". I on the otherhand choose not to be selfish so with my xtra wonderful settlement choose to pay for my son's law school and help my eldest son who is saving to buy a home.
            Just goes to show you when the law doesnt insist on helping a child what some payers choose to do.

            Comment


            • MomForever:

              I actually had the same issue.

              One of the many reasons that I got divorced is that my ex and our oldest daughter had extreme conflict. Both him and I put ourselves through university and came poorer upbringings where our parents expected us to handle our own finances at an early age. He believed that was the way it should be. He didn't want to pay our oldest daughter's tuition...while I felt we should pay her tuition (with the money I had had many arguments to save for that purpose). I believed she should help by paying for her lab fees, parking and books. He expected her to work full-time...I expected her to work part-time and keep up with school work. I literally had to fight every time I spent money on the kids. Christmas was a nightmare....he hated the presents I bought for the kids.

              It caused massive issues.

              Today, our oldest has graduated...lives on her own...works full-time and no longer has any relationship with her father. To my understanding they haven't spoken in almost 3 years. Even during a family funeral, he refused to acknowledge her presence. I still help her with money when she needs it. If I was still with my ex and he found out that I did that, he'd have a fit. My daughter is responsible, works hard, and pays me back on time. I remember my mom helping me out the same way when I was her age. To me, its perfectly normal...she's in her early 20s.

              Its interesting that the further away she got from my ex, the better her life got. Its also interesting that she and my new partner have a wonderful relationship. He loves her and treats her and my other daughter like his own children. When my daughter gets married, its highly unlikely my ex will be invited to the wedding but my new partner will be walking her down the aisle.

              My ex is already starting to alienate our youngest child. She's much closer to my new partner than she is to her father. She prefers being at my house on any given day of the week. She goes to her dad's house because she feels sorry for him but that's not going to last...I know because I stayed married to him for a long time for the same reason.

              The bottom line is that no one receiving court appointed CS should ever have to be accountable to anyone for how they decide to spend that money on their kids. Most people don't even agree on that stuff during marriage. People's philosophies on how to spend money on children varies significantly.

              Comment


              • Say the family in question had a parent who was a CEO of some big company and had an income in the millions. You think that wealthy parent should only pay 120k per year in CS?
                Aaaabsolutely. As a matter of fact 120K / yr is 10K/mo... ridiculous!

                So according to you, what... the NCP should pay 500K/yr in CS to the CP just because the NC parent makes 2 million a year!!! First of all people that make that kind of money are very rare and the governments themselves should be lucky to have individuals like that that stimulate the economy. So this gouging of CS payments is totally unjustified and absurd.

                Even if it meant that the child lived in a mansion with one parent and a much smaller house when with the other parent? That only one parent could be able to take this child on ski trips to Europe? That the child could only go sailing on the yacht with one parent? Etc...?
                I said it before, kids are not entitled to any pleasure they demand. Kids have their responsibility to get educated and grow up into healthy young men or women. That being said, let me repeat, if there was a divorce, then, when the kid(s) reminisce with the NCP (CEO I assume), they may plan their trips to Europe with him and so forth, when paid by the parent that can afford to do so. When they are with the other parent that can't afford to rub two nickels together, they may plan their trips to the neighborhood park and that's that and society must learn how to separate and accept the two conditions. Bear in mind the child is still wealthy! And in any case, nothing stops the wealthier parent to directly deposit a couple of 100K$ (should he wish to) directly into the child's bank account ! And here I say to all whiners about the child's well being.... *the child* *the child* *the child* is now taken care of without involving the CP.

                Why should the wealthy person's child get yanked from that lifestyle just because many other children are raised on less? What did this child do to deserve having that taken away from them?
                As I told you and everyone else here, there was a divorce, and the child gets used to it by understanding that, one parent cannot continue giving to the other and that's simply because the matrimonial link is broken. Its BROOOOKEN!!! Kids get what they need as the essentials to grow up healthy and educated ... beyond that ... it's all about negotiations between the parents and NOT THE COURTS.

                Wealthy families live differently from the rest of us. Why should the wealthy person's child get yanked from that lifestyle just because many other children are raised on less? What did this child do to deserve having that taken away from them?
                I see no problem that the child is entitled to receiving gifts from the NCP (CEO I presume) such as a Lamborghini at 21 years of age, or vacations paid to Eurpoe or even the moon for that matter ... but the provenance of these extras should always be granted through the permission coming directly from the NCP or the one with the bux... and NOT paid from the 10K/mo CS money. When a women or man marries, they don't marry the lifestyle they experienced during the marriage! They use the lifestyle during the marriage and when they divorce, the lifestyle goes for the two.

                The ex has no reason to profit in trips or frivolities of any kind which may be paid by CS money. So that's why I for one see it totally logical to provide a CS cap of 1200$/mo (600$ ea). I see no problem if the millionaire NCP wants to be generous and opt it up to 2 or 3K such that the payments become: (600$/mo for CP and 3K/mo for NCP)... or event 10K, 50K etc... for the NCP. But the latter scenario should never be addressed by a judge obligating the NCP (CEO) to pay such exaggerated amounts. In other words I have no objections that a truce exist solely between the parents.

                Also, you seem to have the attitude that CS money is the 'spending money.' How do you know it's not the CS providing the basics for living so that more of the custodial parent's own income can be used for the frivolities? You perceive it as the parent having more money to spend on themselves, but the receiving parent probably sees it as being able to provide for the child without having to make huge personal sacrifices.
                How I know.... I don't, and that's why many claim accountability should be integrated ... As I propose again, a reasonable CAP for CS.

                Comment


                • Say someone makes $50k and has majority custody of one child, with the other parent making $175k. So there's $1448 a month CS being paid. That's 17376 a year. Omitting taxes and section 7 to simplify things, the custodial parent now has $67376 a year and the noncustodial parent now has $157624 a year to live off. I would say that while the CS transfer helps, it does not go very far to minimizing the difference between the two parents' lifestyles.
                  I may be out to look like the bad guy here... but you really have to see it from a global stand point. This "benefit the child" excuse has swung too far at the other end of the pendulum allowing the CP to opportunistically include him/herself as part of the consuming party of the CS monies. And the motive for this is an unjustified doctrinarian fundamental that the NC parent makes a whopping 175K and where the poor CP is only making 50K. This simply doesn't hold water. The person making more money ... worked for it and the rewards are not he courts business.

                  Bon, fine, we know this ... it's been repeated over and over that my philosophy about this is THERE WAS A DIVORCE and therefore, emotions and love have been destroyed and so should financial help to/from the ex be eliminated. It's only common sense.

                  In your proposed scenario, I believe the amount 1448 amount can vary a little depending on the length of the marriage and the age of the child and the CP health situation. But in any case +/- 3K (1448 ea) per month is waaay more than a child needs. How can you sit there and justify that it takes 3K/mo FOR THE CHILD? I don't get it. The rent is the CP parent's responsibility just like it is for the NCP. Had the CP never been married and had no children, in the grand scheme of life, the rental expense minus aprox. 200$ (from a 4-1/2 to 3-1/2 apartment because there's not kid) would of always been there anyways. The same goes for the car payments which again are totally the CP's responsibility and dido for the rest of the CP's survival expenses. Taking into account all these living expenses, the portion the child is really exposed to is minimal. In other words, it's impossible that solely the child's expenses total up to greater than 1200$/mo. IMPOSSIBLE.

                  If anything todays greedy CS/SS, are scams to give women a safeguard incentive to bear children. Moreover, CS is a scam as I mentioned at the top of this thread(although I can't prove it YET!!!!) for incentives given to the states from the federal governments. <<< I'm digging very deep on the latter!!!

                  Now getting back to your example, Then, according to my state laws, the CEO pays 50% taxes on the 175K gross. This leaves him with 87.5K net. Take away the 17376, I believe he will be left with 70124$. I know this because many years ago when I used to make out the payrolls that's how I would garnish our employee's checks for their child support. I don't do this anymore as I have delegated payroll and so my question to you is are you sure about the $157624 ?

                  Now, lets go a little off topic here a second. An individual making 175K/yr will definitely pay SS. And when we combine CS and SS, there isn't much left from the 175K.

                  HAVING SAID THIS .... HERE'S THE PROBLEM

                  The problem that no one is addressing here... and being ignored by divorce laws, is that when we say that one parent is making 175K/y, above the basic 1200$/mo CS, its really none of the other parent's business anymore. And why is this so... well, it really comes down to a question of entrapment for the parent with the high earning potential. Here's why:

                  The problem goes much further than current numbers, and these scum bag divorce laws know it. Simply because, everyone thinks that ideally the NCP (CEO) will indefinitely make 175K/y and that his earning potential will never go down for decades to come. This is completely overlooking life's reality. The way the economy is, there is no telling how long the CEO will last at that job. Now before you tell me that CS may be adjusted, bear with me a second here.

                  Therefore, we are telling all our kids (just like we have been told) to get an education, job hunt that high paying job and secure yourself financially, find a wife... to marry down of course, (because women tend to usually marry up), buy a house and provide for a family until one day this horrible divorce letter smacks you in the face. By then 15 to 20 years have gone by and we have been financially bleeding the CEO during his best years of remuneration... In other words while married, year after year, that 175K has been consumed in mortgage payments for home an chalet, trips, vehicles and so forth. Which to a certain extent is okay.

                  However, when the CEO gets divorced, if he is lucky enough not to lose his job for the next 5-10 years, he too would like to profit from his current salary and save some money for his future old age or that financial storm that one day may arise. After all, he did go to school and worked very hard to get that job didn't he!

                  But you are saying that not even after his divorce can he capitalize on his own salary potential because he should pay out thousands of dollars more on top of the CS to an ex spouse that thinks she deserves it!

                  Today's current divorce laws don't allow anyone to reap the reward they have personally provided for themselves... in other words you are not letting the CEO capitalize on his earning potential while he can
                  (after his divorce). And that's horrible.

                  Would you mind explaining this reality of life to all high school students across North America and perhaps world-wide by making child support laws 101 a mandatory course for men and women?

                  And FYI people, I often go to Europe and this CS/SS fiasco is just as live and kicking there as it is here.

                  And here is another scenario, that makes no sense, I knew someone, that was part owner of a corp and when he got divorced, the judge didn't only look at his yearly salary!!!! The judge also took into consideration the net revenue of the corporation and increased his payments according to his corporate share ! Now the corporates net revenue has nothing to do with the NCP's salary and yet, the judge still preserved the right to increase his payments based on the fact that he was a shareholder of that corporate net. I don't know where these laws get their logic. That corporate net may be required by the corporation to invest in other expenditures to satisfy future projects and create jobs... how the heck can laws be so stupid.

                  Comment


                  • CS simply guarantees that once a marriage is over, that the kids are still financially secure with both parents. Marriages end, parenting doesn't.
                    "both parents" ... how convenient ayy!

                    Comment


                    • The definition of a feminist is simply someone who believes in equal rights for women.
                      No, the definition of a feminist is someone who believes in equal rights plus privileges handed out by men

                      Comment


                      • And if a woman chooses a career over deciding to get married...why on earth would she be angry. Women get angry when they don't have choices. Some women are happy raising children...some are happy working. No different from men...to each their own. You really have an evident issue with women that clouds your ability to reason. Perhaps you'd be better off simply having relationships with other men since you seem to prefer them and have very little positive to say about the female gender.
                        If anyone has a cloudy ability to reason is you. Why don't you stick to the current issue instead of flying all over the place with emotional talk. Stick to the CS cap and with some numbers so we can analyze who's really getting what!

                        Comment


                        • I'm sure the female population will manage to soldier on without your greatness...LOL.
                          More emotional talk! Can you please stick to the justification as why a CP deserves thousands more in CS?

                          Comment


                          • Who said 10k is too much--too much for who?
                            Millions of men!

                            My children for example went to private school from elementary school through high school, private overnight summer camp and even members of a private ski club. Ha 10k a month would have been appropriate for 1 child.
                            Again we don't listen.... that's okay I am getting used to it. Hey buddy, I am saying that if the child's NCP can afford 100K in memberships and is willing to pay, then that's fine, BUT, the 100K should not go through the hands of the CP, instead, it should be paid directly to the membership establishment by the NCP that is willing to spend for this.

                            What's the difference, the kid gets his private school and gym memberships anyways except this money is directly expensed by the parent with the bux!
                            This way we all know where the 100K went!

                            The CP, gets the 600$ ...(1200$ both parents) get it?

                            Comment


                            • Trust me, not one cent has been given to my children since the divorce. He told my eldest son, "Too bad for you, I am selfish". I on the otherhand choose not to be selfish so with my xtra wonderful settlement choose to pay for my son's law school and help my eldest son who is saving to buy a home.
                              Just goes to show you when the law doesnt insist on helping a child what some payers choose to do.
                              This is not at all what I am preaching for men to do. I am saying that if your ex wasn't greedy, he would of paid your son's education outside the CS payments.

                              Now, I have nothing against a judge ordering your ex to pay part of the education.... the judge can simply order your ex to simply write you out a check made out to the school board and voila! Done!

                              You didn't gate anything at all ... not even CS??? Look people, I am not against helping the children... I told you that all I am seeking is transparency !

                              Comment


                              • First of all PH, I can so relate to your choices and the consequences. Neither of my adult children have any relationship with their father and it is not because he doesnt financially support them, it is totaly his attitude, his selfishness and his behaviour.

                                Concerned, wake up!!! Do you think my x who was earning over 600k was reporting it??? Good for the government? Nope wrong again good for his ski vacations and his transsexual whores!! Who are you kidding.
                                Last edited by momforever1956; 04-13-2014, 03:28 PM.

                                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