Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Financial Issues

Financial Issues This forum is for discussing any of the financial issues involved in your divorce.

Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools
  #51  
Old 08-19-2010, 02:33 PM
dinkyface dinkyface is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2009
Posts: 2,476
dinkyface will become famous soon enough
Default

Haven't read all of the thread replies, but has anyone mentioned BUDGETING as part of how to deal with the problem?

Since you KNOW you will have heavy expenses in the summer, it would make sense to cut back during the rest of the year.
  #52  
Old 08-19-2010, 02:37 PM
blinkandimgone's Avatar
blinkandimgone blinkandimgone is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Feb 2010
Location: Lucknow
Posts: 5,406
blinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the roughblinkandimgone is a jewel in the rough
Default

It was but everyone who mentioned it was either wrong or living off their ex.
  #53  
Old 08-19-2010, 02:40 PM
HammerDad HammerDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2010
Location: Hamilton
Posts: 3,918
HammerDad will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by dinkyface View Post
Haven't read all of the thread replies, but has anyone mentioned BUDGETING as part of how to deal with the problem?

Since you KNOW you will have heavy expenses in the summer, it would make sense to cut back during the rest of the year.
I think I mentioned it 2 or 3 times.
  #54  
Old 08-19-2010, 03:27 PM
NBDad's Avatar
NBDad NBDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Brunswick
Posts: 2,734
NBDad is on a distinguished road
Default

She's fixated on previous posts on the calculations, despite being shown they are wrong. There's a prior one around about the bonus her hubby got and how it was going to cost them SO much more in CS.

I did the damn math for her and I was still wrong apparently.

Facts is facts, if she spent half as much time working a budget as opposed to arguing and whining about things, she'd be much better off.

I'd love to see her yearly household expenses....guarantee they are MUCH better off financially this way than by having the children 50% of them time.
  #55  
Old 08-19-2010, 04:12 PM
dadtotheend's Avatar
dadtotheend dadtotheend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,644
dadtotheend will become famous soon enoughdadtotheend will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by blinkandimgone View Post
The majority of your posts on this board are whining about how much money your husband is paying to support his children.
Exactly, and she talks about how she is being patronized, while at the same insulting and offending and name-calling anyone (i.e. everyone) who doesn't sympathize with her sorry choices.
  #56  
Old 08-19-2010, 06:53 PM
dadtotheend's Avatar
dadtotheend dadtotheend is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: Toronto
Posts: 3,644
dadtotheend will become famous soon enoughdadtotheend will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by got2bkid View Post
http://www.fact.on.ca/fin_supp/csr-1997-1.pdf

here is the gov't doc. It clearly states NCP costs are assumed to be that of a single person.

enough said, dadtotheend, I'm sure you'll find a way to dismiss this am remain truly ignorant on the subject anyway, since that currently suits your position.
No it states that both parents are assumed to be single. In your case, you're husband is not single. He is with you and therefore there is even more $$ available in your household, assuming that you work. And when I say work, I mean earning an income, not working at bitching about your situation and
being a jerk to everyone around here.

What it does "clearly" state in section 2.0 is "This transferred sum should maximise the amount available to be spent on the children while still allowing an adequate reserve for the self support of the paying parent."

In other words it does contemplate the NCP costs including those costs during times the kids are with him/her.

Your ex's children live with their mom, a choice your ex allowed. Too bad so sad love (sole custody) dad.
  #57  
Old 08-19-2010, 07:22 PM
NBDad's Avatar
NBDad NBDad is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: New Brunswick
Posts: 2,734
NBDad is on a distinguished road
Default

DTTE: that's god damn EPIC dude...I love it. :-D

Bravo sir....bravo
  #58  
Old 08-20-2010, 11:04 AM
got2bkid got2bkid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

God you guys are thick.

He (NCP) is assumed to be a single person - with ZERO child expenses. EVER.

She (CP) is assumed to be a single person with children - with ALL the child expenses.

He is given a self-support amount ot the welfare rate - after which child support starts being deducted.

He is not given any credit for also having to set-up a house for his children, having a room for them too, having beds, dressers, clothes, toys, making sure his car is big enough to transport them.

As the years go by he is also not given any credit for the time he spends with his kids, feeding them, buying them more things at his house etc.

Actually all the costs HE incurrs, SHE is assumed to have, and he pays her for them.

The calculations are based on the guy dropping off the kids at moms house, and riding off in the sun NEVER to see them again and living the life of a bachelor.

If you actually READ the document, you would know that, not keep spreading your propoganda drivel. Really, who PAYS you guys?
  #59  
Old 08-20-2010, 11:17 AM
logicalvelocity logicalvelocity is offline
Moderator
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Ontario
Posts: 3,943
logicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura aboutlogicalvelocity has a spectacular aura about
Send a message via Yahoo to logicalvelocity
Default

I'm just a parent. No pay - but the opportunity is priceless.
  #60  
Old 08-20-2010, 11:18 AM
got2bkid got2bkid is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 324
got2bkid is on a distinguished road
Default

"Actually all the costs HE incurrs, SHE is assumed to have, and he pays her for them."

I htought i better clarify this statement for you, since you probably wouldn't understand what this means.

He is assumed to never be with his kids, hence no child costs.
She is assumed to always be the one looking after the kids, hence, even on his his time the costs he would incurr (up to 40% access) are assumed to he HER costs and included in the child support amounts.

I have to try to explain things very carefully, as you people love to take words out of context, twist the meaning intended, and try to ridicule the poster over it.
Closed Thread


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 Off



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:22 PM.