Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Divorce & Family Law

Divorce & Family Law This forum is for discussing any of the legal issues involved in your divorce.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #71  
Old 08-12-2014, 09:13 PM
karma_fan karma_fan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2
karma_fan is on a distinguished road
Default

I agree with rthombe. I don't think it's rocket science to see the unfairness. The main point here for me is that there is absolutely no incentive for either parent to strive for better wages or promotion. It's just the opposite incentive, in fact. If either parent so chose to live that way and with their conscience. It does seem like masked SS. I have recently been wondering why on average, my higher earning buddies have chosen to be the "weekend dad" over 50/50 shared, but now I think I'm beginning to see the trade-off. They seem to choose to pay the full table amount for the freedom to roam as the want, and the receiving spouse actually ends up working harder for that money. It seems more fair to do the weekend parent than to go with the "50/50" shared arrangement. In the end, as a caring parent, I think it comes down to soldering up and taking the "unfair hit" for your kids, providing you the opportunity to instil righteousness into their way of thinking as well as appreciation for still knowing how to enjoy life on less, despite the ridiculous unfairness forced upon us. One thing I know in my heart, is that karma has no restrictions, and the non-believers can laugh all they want, it still won't stop it from coming. Lucky for me, I was raised with very little beyond my basic needs. Because of this, I know of no such feeling of superficial materialistic lifestyle feelings. However, I do know how to appreciate and enjoy the simpler things in life and I have taught that to my children. You know, the ones that play hours with the box that the expensive toy came in? The only way I can bring myself to terms to deal with this type of unfairness, is to remind myself that I'm not living in a country where my basic human rights have been stripped from me, nor my family or friends slain senselessly. And I also remind myself that this is the length I must go to to be my children's soldier and take this grenade for them. Someday they may see it, or they may not. Hopefully, I will see them blossom into brilliant and upstanding citizen's of whom I will be proud to take ownership of. Most important of all, I hope to see individuals who truly grasp the greatness of the the simple things in life and effortlessly find peace and happiness in their hearts as a result.
Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old 08-12-2014, 10:53 PM
dinkyface dinkyface is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,476
dinkyface will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Janus View Post
If, for example, either parent earned their income through something other than a salary (eg. dividend income) then that is not considered at all by the support tables. If you earn dividend income, then you really win at family law
Technically no, because CS Guidelines include a provision to gross-up the income for parents who are paying significantly lower than usual taxes for some reason.

http://www.justice.gc.ca/eng/rp-pr/f...ide/info1.html

Last edited by dinkyface; 08-12-2014 at 10:58 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old 08-13-2014, 12:17 AM
Links17 Links17 is offline
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,166
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Firstly, those dads underestimate losing a father will have on their kids. What if doubled the chance your kids becomes a high school drop out?

Secondly, you are forgetting about 2 very important things.
a) Family Tax Benefits, In Quebec poor single mothers with full custody and below 20k of income clear 1200$/month in family benefits.

b) Equivalent to spouse tax deduction is worth 3000$/year or more depending for a decent wage earner.

In shared custody, I think it is conceivable that the higher earner can actually end up not paying anything out of pocket.
Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old 08-13-2014, 10:49 AM
karma_fan karma_fan is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2014
Posts: 2
karma_fan is on a distinguished road
Default

Links17, it's funny how the "moral" issue isn't considered so much when the higher earning parent is legally penalized for trying to better their career or financial stability, in turn, effectively benefiting the other parent more of a percentage (according to calculations I've been seeing in this thread) for every additional dollar they make, yet when the higher earning exercises their legally correct arrangement of joint custody and access every other weekend, the moral issue comes significantly into play. I think the kids suffer from either situation, however I feel the later is "more" fair. In the first arrangement, the higher earner is effectively more stressed out over the inequality in consideration the 50/50 of care provided, and of course any type of stress can easily leech into family morale. I suspect the higher earners who have chosen the every-second-weekend are much less stressed because they don't feel so much like they are paying the other parent to hire themselves as the baby sitter every other week, effectively improving the quality of the lesser amount of time they get to spend with them. It shouldn't have to be so complicated. There should be valid incentive for both parent's to strive to have the best occupation they can without having the other gouging from their pockets of earnings they've strategically and righteously accomplished without any assistance from the other. The present set-off calculation encourages both parents to either keep the bar low or make it lower. This is not right. It's distasteful of a society. It's shameful. Two morally correct parents will likely agree to either split the set-off amount or not bother at all and simply accept that they'll each have a week to themselves and a week of caring for the kids, thus agreeing that the calculation by law is flawed and mutually by-pass it altogether.
Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old 08-13-2014, 07:32 PM
rthombe rthombe is offline
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 23
rthombe is on a distinguished road
Default

karma_fan, I like the way you bring the morality and stress into the argument. It's an aspect I tend to overlook when I get lost in the numbers.

There is no doubt that when you feel -- as I do -- that my high support contributes to maintaining a higher standard of living for my ex and her family than I enjoy myself, that it creates all kinds of stress, and I bet you're right ... if I didn't have 50/50, I wouldn't be so concerned with it. And of course that stress and tension affects the kids, and the bottom line of any CS discussion should be what's in their best interest.

FWIW: since I originally posted this thread long, long ago, I got my ex talking. By focusing on the kids, we came up with a formula that looked at our *real* expenses, and tried to assign a portion of those expenses to the children.

For example, taking our real expenses for rent, transportation, food, clothing, medical etc. etc. we arrived at a figure that says it costs $X to raise the kids at her home, and $Y to raise the kids at my home. So we consider $(X+Y) to be what we, as their parents, need to ensure we contribute jointly -- anything less would be unfair to them.

We then take that $(X+Y) amount and divide it up proportionately with our relative incomes, so that I'm responsible for, say, 70% and she's responsible for 30%. As one would expect, 70% of $(X+Y) is greater than $X, and 30% of ($X+Y) is less than $Y; so I transfer my excess to her as CS, so that she can spend the whole $Y it takes to support the kids at her house, and I have no more than $X to spend to support the kids at my house.

Now, figuring out $X and $Y is difficult and no doubt imperfect, but we were able to agree on the formula. It takes into account any potential "standard of living" differences, so that support will only be calculated on realistic, agreed-upon standard payments for things like rent and entertainment etc.

Here's the interesting thing. When calculating this way, we end up with almost the *exact* CS payment as we would have had if we had just taken the half-offset I originally proposed!

Still, I like the way we do it now, as it focuses on actual expenses and not entitlements or anything like that.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
child support, off-set method, set-off, shared custody


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Self Employment and Variance Order epinecone Financial Issues 7 04-14-2011 04:34 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:51 PM.