Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This system needs work!!

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

  • Originally posted by 1ati2de View Post
    CS absolutely as the child did nothing and fathers need to take responsibilities, one night or divorce.
    What you wrote there about CS is perhaps the biggest misconception in family law. Remember that CS and SS both go to the same place and have the same checks on what the recipient does with it; i.e., none at all.

    Guideline CS = trueCS + trueSS

    The trueSS part is wrong for the reasons discussed. Many people are repulsed by the idea of SS. I think the idea of automatic SS is not accepted by the majority of the population at large, so lawmakers simply rename it to CS. At least SS does not pretend it's something that it is not. CS on the other hand is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The harm of CS is not confined to the financial realm.

    Comment


    • let's simplify this for you - you pay to play. Male or female.

      You don't want to pay a wage for domestic services? then if/when your blissful relationship comes to an end you had better be prepared to pay.

      Don't like it? Hire a nanny, escort and housekeeper.

      How many of you have jumped right into another live-in relationship? I'm curious why one would do that? ummmm let me guess... ya think it's cheaper and easier right?

      Comment


      • Originally posted by arabian View Post
        let's simplify this for you - you pay to play. Male or female.

        You don't want to pay a wage for domestic services? then if/when your blissful relationship comes to an end you had better be prepared to pay.

        Don't like it? Hire a nanny, escort and housekeeper.

        How many of you have jumped right into another live-in relationship? I'm curious why one would do that? ummmm let me guess... ya think it's cheaper and easier right?
        I think you've hit the nail on the head. In today's world, it makes less and less sense to get married except for those individuals who want to for family, religious, or other personal reasons. Financially it is the most reckless gamble you could make.

        At some point, Canadian society will have to decide if there is an overall benefit in having people married and adjust things; limiting spousal support, paying much increased benefits to those caring for children.

        Comment


        • Originally posted by arabian View Post
          let's simplify this for you - you pay to play. Male or female.

          You don't want to pay a wage for domestic services? then if/when your blissful relationship comes to an end you had better be prepared to pay.
          Getting married or more generally pair bonding is natural human behaviour that has existed for thousands of years. The same can be said for prostitution, with which marriage shares some common elements. However, ex-wife sticking you with a giant bill when the relationship comes to an end is something new that only developed in the latter 20th century. It amounts to a crippling tax imposed on a natural human behaviour; one of the biggest wrongs affecting Western societies in the modern era.

          Comment


          • Originally posted by CoolGuy41 View Post
            Getting married or more generally pair bonding is natural human behaviour that has existed for thousands of years. The same can be said for prostitution, with which marriage shares some common elements. However, ex-wife sticking you with a giant bill when the relationship comes to an end is something new that only developed in the latter 20th century. It amounts to a crippling tax imposed on a natural human behaviour; one of the biggest wrongs affecting Western societies in the modern era.
            Pay to play. You didn't pay your ex a wage while you were married. Court protects those who, for whatever reason, do not work for a number of years or who have shown they cannot support themselves. Court values contribution of BOTH parties, not just the wage-earner.

            My mind goes to dowry business which is still very much alive in some cultures.

            In olden days if a husband screwed around on the wife he would have the crap beaten out of him and then watched very carefully by the wife's family - not many left those marriages. At least in our society we can leave an unhappy marriage.

            If you are in business and you and your partner decide to end the business you divide assets. Same with a marriage. Some partnerships are made with one partner who provides finances and the other partner performs the work. I don't think marriages are much different. Jobs/roles differ but basically when the marriage ends the assets are divided and if one partner cannot afford to buy out the other then repayment arrangements are put in place after the business/marraige has been valuated. SS allows the payer to have a review after a negotiated amount of time. If the payer hasn't cheaped-out and hired competent legal counsel, there often are many other things in separation agreement that would see payer making less in payments (stepped down SS and/or specific time-line for recipient to find employment, for example). In some cases the parties are simply too old to expect the recipient to be able to become self-sufficient, particularly if he/she has been out of the workforce for a considerable amount of time.

            Thankfully, SS is determined on a case-by-case basis.
            Last edited by arabian; 09-18-2017, 08:30 PM.

            Comment


            • Originally posted by arabian View Post
              Pay to play. You didn't pay your ex a wage while you were married.
              I didn't pay ex a wage while we were married because that would be (overt) prostitution. I stated prostitution is your view of what marriage should be, not mine.

              My mind goes to dowry business which is still very much alive in some cultures.
              Dowry is monies paid from the bride's family to that of the groom. That is the opposite of what typically happens in Canada.

              In olden days if a husband screwed around on the wife he would have the crap beaten out of him and then watched very carefully by the wife's family - not many left those marriages. At least in our society we can leave an unhappy marriage.
              And in Canada if husband displeases the wife he can legally be murdered:
              [LINK]http://www.ctvnews.ca/w5/justice-system-scrutinized-woman-hires-hitman-but-goes-free-1.2079731[/LINK]

              Yea, I don't know if everyone realizes this but contracted murder of your ex-husband is now legal in Canada. It has been sanctioned by the highest court in the country.

              If you are in business and you and your partner decide to end the business you divide assets. Same with a marriage. Some partnerships are made with one partner who provides finances and the other partner performs the work. I don't think marriages are much different.
              Sure; you can make the business analogy. Suppose me and my business partner are splitting up. I happen to be the woman. O wait a minute. I have a claim for a bunch of work. I do not have any time cards or nothing but I estimate the value of that work at umm... How much do you have again? Yes, about that much. Pay up!

              In some cases the parties are simply too old to expect the recipient to be able to become self-sufficient, particularly if he/she has been out of the workforce for a considerable amount of time.
              And CS/SS are just the right dismotivators to keep them on that loser path!

              Comment


              • Read up on business valuation (how they are performed) and then you will understand what I failed at getting across to you.

                Comment


                • Originally posted by arabian View Post
                  Read up on business valuation (how they are performed) and then you will understand what I failed at getting across to you.


                  Not worth it... he won't agree ever that there are cases for SS... one of those people who are fine with taking advantage of a spouse staying home for years but then not wanting to offer anything in return. Thankfully the Canadian courts recognize that BOTH partners are worth something when the marriage ends.


                  Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

                  Comment


                  • Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                    Not worth it... he won't agree ever that there are cases for SS... one of those people who are fine with taking advantage of a spouse staying home for years but then not wanting to offer anything in return. Thankfully the Canadian courts recognize that BOTH partners are worth something when the marriage ends.
                    Arabian's personal situation clouds the issue and should not be used as an example of SS. Her order calls it SS, but it's really long-term payback of equalization. Her ex tried to rip her off through their business, and this is family law's way of partially recouping that for her. It's not a normal case of entitlement for SS.

                    As for normal SS, I agree that it is something to strive for that it not be so automatic, with the ultimate goal for it to not exist at all. Adults should be assumed to be self-sufficient when they are single. When they are part of a relationship, the way they manage that financial partnership is up to them, but when it ends, they should be prepared to go back to self-sufficiency.

                    However, we are not there yet. To set that up would require mandated prenups, or at the very least, much better education about the legal and financial aspects of the marriage contract. Nearly all marriages are entered into with the assumption that it will never fail, so the consequences of a break-up are ignored by the two parties. Many marriages are still traditional, and many marriages consist of one person with a good career, and one person with only a job or unemployed, often by mutual agreement that the second income was not as necessary. By mutual agreement, one partner has limited their income potential. So upon relationship breakdown, why should that MUTUAL agreement mean that one partner's earning potential is forever set back from where they would have been had they never married?

                    Then you would still have tons of people going to court to argue that it wasn't a mutual agreement (unless there's a prenup or postnup). What's the solution? Bring back the concept of fault in divorce?

                    "Your honour, I wanted her to keep working, but she refused!"
                    "Your honour, I supported him in school for ten years, on the assumption I would benefit from the results!"
                    "Your honour, he cheated on me, why must I keep paying him anything!"

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                      So why don't more fathers step up and take parental leave? Why is it mostly the wives that do this? Why don't more men take off work to take their children to appointments? Most men don't take on the responsibility of equally raising their children but at the end of a marriage they also don't think the work their wives put into raising their children meant anything.

                      More men need to take responsibility of their children and be equal parents during the marriage. If that was the case the wives could go back to work and build their career but the truth is if a child is sick the wife stays home, child has an appointment, wife leaves work early. That's what happens in most cases. The men don't take time off, don't leave work early and don't sacrifice their career because they have a wife that does all that.

                      Maybe husbands should start paying their wives a Nanny wage? That way if the marriage does end the wife has an income and can also go be a Nanny elsewhere. Of course the husband would deduct taxes and everything for the government and issue a T4 at the end of the year so the wife had an income.


                      Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                      Yes I will respect the fact that mostly women get maternity leave and are the primary caregiver at birth. Might be something to do with “breastfeeding” thing but who knows and yes I know the pump thing also. I also do know that having a child is not a ticket to sit on ones ass till the child has his own children.

                      A woman can, will, and do the same job as a man and in many cases better, that’s why most of the people I deal with daily manage to have a career also, imagine that! They work, have a family and split the cores within the family. Do you knot think that if one person stayed home then it’s their responsibility to take care of the children to run all the errands? I personally don’t think that most, not all men would prefer their spouse to have a job. Sorry but husbands don’t need to pay a nanny’s wage, they need a job to pay the nanny!

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by CoolGuy41 View Post
                        What you wrote there about CS is perhaps the biggest misconception in family law. Remember that CS and SS both go to the same place and have the same checks on what the recipient does with it; i.e., none at all.

                        Guideline CS = trueCS + trueSS

                        The trueSS part is wrong for the reasons discussed. Many people are repulsed by the idea of SS. I think the idea of automatic SS is not accepted by the majority of the population at large, so lawmakers simply rename it to CS. At least SS does not pretend it's something that it is not. CS on the other hand is a wolf in sheep's clothing. The harm of CS is not confined to the financial realm.
                        Very true but this needs to be even across the board as children need equality, should not be judged by what the parents income are and SS eliminated period!

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                          Arabian's personal situation clouds the issue and should not be used as an example of SS. Her order calls it SS, but it's really long-term payback of equalization. Her ex tried to rip her off through their business, and this is family law's way of partially recouping that for her. It's not a normal case of entitlement for SS.

                          As for normal SS, I agree that it is something to strive for that it not be so automatic, with the ultimate goal for it to not exist at all. Adults should be assumed to be self-sufficient when they are single. When they are part of a relationship, the way they manage that financial partnership is up to them, but when it ends, they should be prepared to go back to self-sufficiency.

                          However, we are not there yet. To set that up would require mandated prenups, or at the very least, much better education about the legal and financial aspects of the marriage contract. Nearly all marriages are entered into with the assumption that it will never fail, so the consequences of a break-up are ignored by the two parties. Many marriages are still traditional, and many marriages consist of one person with a good career, and one person with only a job or unemployed, often by mutual agreement that the second income was not as necessary. By mutual agreement, one partner has limited their income potential. So upon relationship breakdown, why should that MUTUAL agreement mean that one partner's earning potential is forever set back from where they would have been had they never married?

                          Then you would still have tons of people going to court to argue that it wasn't a mutual agreement (unless there's a prenup or postnup). What's the solution? Bring back the concept of fault in divorce?

                          "Your honour, I wanted her to keep working, but she refused!"
                          "Your honour, I supported him in school for ten years, on the assumption I would benefit from the results!"
                          "Your honour, he cheated on me, why must I keep paying him anything!"

                          I would agree!

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                            Not worth it... he won't agree ever that there are cases for SS... one of those people who are fine with taking advantage of a spouse staying home for years but then not wanting to offer anything in return. Thankfully the Canadian courts recognize that BOTH partners are worth something when the marriage ends.


                            Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
                            Yes, and this is what needs to change.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by Berner_Faith View Post
                              ... taking advantage of a spouse staying home for years ...
                              I wish I could find someone to take advantage of me like that! And if they are foolish enough to take advantage of me long enough, the courts will insist they continue to do so indefinitely.

                              I must have missed my calling in life.

                              Comment


                              • Originally posted by ifonlyihadknown View Post
                                I wish I could find someone to take advantage of me like that! And if they are foolish enough to take advantage of me long enough, the courts will insist they continue to do so indefinitely.

                                I must have missed my calling in life.
                                So very true. It’s hard not to work 40+ hours a week with all the stress of providing for a family, watch soaps, run errands and take care of the kids. Live in a comfortable home, food, cloths, and vacations, possible a car all paid for. Rough life I tell you, I would just hate that.

                                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