Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Enough already

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

  • #31
    It seems pretty simple to me.

    During marriage, the child lives a lifestyle according to the income of the parents. After divorce this should continue - CS according to income - that's what the tables are for. If you don't make much, little CS, if you make a lot, a lot of CS. The fact that the CP benefits directly from a lot of CS can't be helped.

    Spousal support is very valid in the case where one person, in the financial arrangement of marriage, sacrifices their earning potential while the other does not - a decision made by both. After divorce, SS should be granted, decreasing over time to compensate that person for that financial sacrifice. It SHOULD NOT depend on what happens after the marriage (ie if they work or not, or try to improve their job status), but rather what happened during the marriage - compensatory SS. Also in some cases (a long term marriage with a stay at home parent), there is no recovery from loss of career - in that case permanent SS is valid as there is permanent damage.

    Unlike CS, SS needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

    Also as for the point of reducing support to make the recipients prepared for the death of the payor - kind of a silly argument. Any normal parent should have life insurance in place to take care of their children in the event of their death.

    Comment


    • #32
      I agree billm that a parent should have insurance for their children.

      9/10 the person that stays with marital home is the wife and 9/10 she gets SS. Tell me then why does SHE get both?

      he has paid for the house and now has to continue paying her to stay in the house HE paid for and now paying for a second time around

      Comment


      • #33
        Question for Littleman ..... without looking back at all your previous posts to figure it out

        Are you a new girlfriend referring to her ss/cs paying boyfriend?

        Or, are you a woman paying her ex husband ss?

        Comment


        • #34
          Im neither......so much for your assumption. I am a mother of a 17 year old bottomless eating machine and I do not get spousal support nor would I want to. I am a very proud woman that can say even though the ex financially screwed me out of my home I dont need him to support me. He has a financial obligation to our child and the money ends there. (for the record our child receives all CS I do not) BTW punked why would I have to look back when this is reality. Im not the sour ex wife nor am I the financial sour gf.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by littleman View Post
            Im neither......so much for your assumption. I am a mother of a 17 year old bottomless eating machine and I do not get spousal support nor would I want to. I am a very proud woman that can say even though the ex financially screwed me out of my home I dont need him to support me. He has a financial obligation to our child and the money ends there. (for the record our child receives all CS I do not) BTW punked why would I have to look back when this is reality. Im not the sour ex wife nor am I the financial sour gf.
            Your passion about this subject means there is a thorn in your side. I wonder what it is?

            If marriage was in actuality a business, don't you think that if two equal people start out together, one develops a career, while the other maintains the home and primarily raises the kids, that at the end of that relationship that the one that has very little earning potential should not be compensated (as was during the marriage) financially until their career is reestablished?

            However also in my view:
            If they didn't have kids - no SS.
            If they both worked full time - no SS.
            If you make less than the other - no SS. (ie don't have to compensate for actual career damage if you make less than the person whose career was damaged as a result of the marriage).
            SS should be time limited and not based on what happens AFTER the separation, unless earning potential was significantly and permanently damaged.

            Comment


            • #36
              Im passionate about this because I feel alot of people and mostly men (and CSAngel) are being taken for a ride.
              Im not the bitter ex wife nor am I the gf with spouse who has ex SS payments.

              I read these comments from people or hear people saying they are entitled to SS. For what? You went into marriage with similar expectations - to live happily ever after. Didnt work out so doesnt mean one spouse lives to pay ever after.

              Scenario for you. You are in marriage and one is stay at home parent. Sadly working parent in car accident and succombs to injuries and dies. Stay at home parent needs to find job on the ASAP to support Jack & Jill and his or herself. So what can I ask is the difference if there is divorce? Working parent removed from picture, but there is still CS coming why is there need for SS when in previous scenario you have no choice. Should be same in both scenarios.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by CSAngel View Post
                Agreed - however, if one parent gave up their career and/or education to stay at home and raise the children then SS may be necessary for a while. I don't agree it should be indefinite but you can not seriously expect someone to leave a marriage with no education or skills and find a job to support themselves and their children right away.

                When you are married you are a unit. You support each other. Just because one person works and the other stays home, does not make the money coming into the household the possession of the employed. That's an archaic outlook. If that marriage breaks down, the one who stayed home should not be left with nothing. They contributed as well. They should be given the opportunity to get on their feet and support themselves.

                Unfortunately, there are way too many people who feel they should never have to look after themselves.
                Im sorry but blah, blah, blah...your rational may of worked back in the 60's & 70's. But now we have equality, equal rights. A woman is just as smart as a man. Especially when it comes to ss and cs entitlements along with working and navigating the family law system.

                Go out and get a job! So children know that its not okay to leech of your ex for the rest of your life. The above statement about education and giving careers ect, in my opinion only sets the tone that woman are weak and not able to fend for themselves. Isn't that the exact oppose that woman have fought for for decades...independence and equality. So now after all this fighting it goes right out the window when you expect someone to pay/support you for the rest of your life and use the children as the pc term to justify it. Give me a frekin break.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by littleman View Post
                  ...

                  Scenario for you. You are in marriage and one is stay at home parent. Sadly working parent in car accident and succombs to injuries and dies. Stay at home parent needs to find job on the ASAP to support Jack & Jill and his or herself. So what can I ask is the difference if there is divorce? Working parent removed from picture, but there is still CS coming why is there need for SS when in previous scenario you have no choice. Should be same in both scenarios.
                  Okay, I assume you disagree with my scenario.

                  They should not be the same. The earnings of the dead one is 0. In divorce it is not 0. That is the difference. They are not dead, they are off financially unaffected by the marriage, but the other is - simple business concept.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    business concept...one spouse got fired doesnt mean previous boss is to still support the fired one. when you are fired your paycheque stops and there is not Employment Insurance on this one.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Originally posted by littleman View Post
                      Im neither......so much for your assumption. I am a mother of a 17 year old bottomless eating machine and I do not get spousal support nor would I want to. I am a very proud woman that can say even though the ex financially screwed me out of my home I dont need him to support me. He has a financial obligation to our child and the money ends there. (for the record our child receives all CS I do not) BTW punked why would I have to look back when this is reality. Im not the sour ex wife nor am I the financial sour gf.
                      Good for you. Good for your child. I truly mean that.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by littleman View Post
                        business concept...one spouse got fired doesnt mean previous boss is to still support the fired one. when you are fired your paycheque stops and there is not Employment Insurance on this one.
                        That's what SEVERENCE is for. A specified amount for a specified period of time based on the length of service (usually)

                        I have a better idea !

                        Why don't we just make divorce illegal and when we want to shtupp someone else we just cut off the offending existing spouse's head!

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          OMG punked you think severance carries on forever. So you think that 5k a month for 10 years is severance?? Really? Where does self respect come into play?

                          I have another post you made which is below and I really think you are out to get what ever you can financially from who ever - seriously men were put on this earth to provide? With that way of thinking women were put here to spread their legs and be baby factories but they were never given the right to have money- that is not their job according to you- men provide women procreate.

                          Originally Posted by punked
                          Originally Posted by shellshocked22

                          Basically, I think all women are a little (lot) nutty so the next one will likely not be much better lol.




                          I really don't think he was kidding.

                          As all men are self-centred, egotistical, single-minded sex maniacs who only think of their own gratification and needs.

                          Man was put on this earth to provide - and now they think they deserve thanks for their efforts - hahahahaha - for those that acutally make the effort.

                          So - shut up shellshocked and get a life - and if you really worked your balls off - then you wouldn't be in the mess your in!

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by LostFather View Post
                            Im sorry but blah, blah, blah...your rational may of worked back in the 60's & 70's. But now we have equality, equal rights. A woman is just as smart as a man. Especially when it comes to ss and cs entitlements along with working and navigating the family law system.

                            Go out and get a job! So children know that its not okay to leech of your ex for the rest of your life. The above statement about education and giving careers ect, in my opinion only sets the tone that woman are weak and not able to fend for themselves. Isn't that the exact oppose that woman have fought for for decades...independence and equality. So now after all this fighting it goes right out the window when you expect someone to pay/support you for the rest of your life and use the children as the pc term to justify it. Give me a frekin break.
                            Who said I was talking about women? Men can be stay at home parents too.

                            I agree that ex's should be independent. But sometimes that can take a bit of time. Do you really expect someone who sacrificed their career for the family unit to run out and work at Timmies for the rest of their lives? And why, as a human being, would you want to put someone in that position? I see nothing wrong with providing some help to get started. Would you prefer they go on Welfare and have tax payers pay for their education and low-income housing? If you marry someone you have a responsibility to them. If the marriage ends that doesn't mean you should kick them to the curb and leave them with nothing. I'm not talking about someone who sat at home with an MBA and then claims they can't find work. And I'm not saying SS should be permanent. But a little bit of a boost to help someone become independent hardly seems unreasonable.

                            Let's also teach our children that it's important to treat others with a little respect.
                            Last edited by HappyMomma; 11-03-2011, 01:43 PM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by littleman View Post
                              Originally Posted by punked

                              As all men are self-centred, egotistical, single-minded sex maniacs who only think of their own gratification and needs.

                              Man was put on this earth to provide - and now they think they deserve thanks for their efforts - hahahahaha - for those that acutally make the effort.

                              So - shut up shellshocked and get a life - and if you really worked your balls off - then you wouldn't be in the mess your in!
                              Wow.

                              Wow. I'm almost speechless. That's the smelliest piece of bullshit I think I've ever read. And there is some serious woman-bashing bullshit on this site but....Wow. Angry much?

                              Just for the record - my partner is the exact opposite of that description. Oh, and a man.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Hey CSAngel - this was in another post - maybe read the whole thread ....




                                Originally Posted by shellshocked22

                                Basically, I think all women are a little (lot) nutty so the next one will likely not be much better lol.



                                My response to this ridiculous statement was an equally ridiculous statement: by: Punked
                                Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines
                                i really hope you were kidding about that remark.



                                I really don't think he was kidding.

                                As all men are self-centred, egotistical, single-minded sex maniacs who only think of their own gratification and needs.

                                Man was put on this earth to provide - and now they think they deserve thanks for their efforts - hahahahaha - for those that acutally make the effort.

                                So - shut up shellshocked and get a life - and if you really worked your balls off - then you wouldn't be in the mess your in!

                                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