Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

rockscan · #91 09-17-2017, 03:04 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolGuy41

Opinions are like assholes, everybody has one.

And sadly forums have a holes too. Thanks for showing up!

1ati2de · #92 09-18-2017, 08:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian

welfare rates +++ (free/subsidized housing, free dental, free vision, free prescriptions, etc.). In many cases, this would amount to much more than many receive from SS.

This would only stimulate the construction industry as many housing units would have to be built. Tax payer would likely see a substantial increase in taxes to pay for this.

Why should tax payers pay for failed marriages? Tax payers already have to pay for other people's children (child tax credits).

Ever think about getting a JOB? Honest day work for an honest day pay? Been around for a long time. Every bimbo thinks the spouse owes them in a marriage whom is at the financial disadvantage, man or woman. Then if SS is out lets automatically ask for another hand out and go on welfare. WOW! Pretty sure soaps are on at the optimal time in a day for one reason!

arabian · #93 09-18-2017, 08:18 AM

If your statement is directed at me - I have always been self-sufficient and have worked most of my adult life (I'm 60 now). I work at least 44 hrs/week (sometimes more). I will probably work past age 65. I enjoy my work. You?

1ati2de · #94 09-18-2017, 08:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian

If your statement is directed at me - I have always been self-sufficient and have worked most of my adult life (I'm 60 now). I work at least 44 hrs/week (sometimes more). I will probably work past age 65. I enjoy my work. You?

No no, sorry this post was not directed at you personally. Most, not all end with financial gains in the duration and both parties come out with more. Even more so the one member who didn’t make the same as the other member.

Fact that if you came into a relationship with a low skillset or wage and never took the opportunity to better yourself you lived a comfortable live before. Now a relationship goes south and all if not most of the time I need SS to live?

You know my opinion on the business deal that you would not receive a cent anywhere else but family court.

Courts don’t care who is at fault in a relationship, they want to bury the bread winner and that’s all. I totally agree with the government educating the public in family law to end SS and clean up family law.

Sorry I just get tired when people constantly keep looking for handouts. Both sided of the party have major issues with SS. The bimbo wants more and more and the government keeps catering.

arabian · #95 09-18-2017, 09:42 AM

"The bimbo" may want more but often the "dick-head" wants to shirk his responsibility. If he hadn't married an uneducated, unmotivated person in the first place and endorsed the role of in-home domestic goddess plan, he would likely not be in the situation he is in.

I believe that in situations where a couple decides that one will work outside the home and the other not work outside of the home that a wage should be paid as well as insurance purchased. This planning ahead would save the couple $$$ should the relationship fail. I also believe that pre-nups should be mandatory. If more time was spent doing this planning (than the gross squandering of money for a wedding) we might eventually see a change.

The problem is, as in my case, one can protect themselves all they want legally (corporately) but unfortunately family law trumps corporate law.

I'm sure there are many other problems good-intending people encounter. We could start a whole thread on bankruptcy.

You seem to think that SS is a hand-out and have difficulty accepting the fact that the homemaker/SAHM is more than a housekeeper/babysitter. Only when these SAHMs receive a fair wage for their work will people understand and value their contribution to the marriage (and yes, their contributions to husband's careers). Fortunately, current legislation recognizes this imbalance when marriages end.

If you don't want to pay SS then simply do not enter into a 'traditional marriage.' You have the choice.

Janus · #96 09-18-2017, 10:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolGuy41

SS is one person being coerced into working in part for the benefit of another person.

There are no ethical grey areas there! SS is just plain wrong.

Of course there are grey areas, don't be silly. It also makes your point harder to argue.

1) Every single A is a B
2) Many A's are B's

The first argument falls apart as soon as I find an A that is not a B. The second argument is much stronger. Be smart, recognize the grey

.

Quote:

Most of the pro-SS arguments on this forum are straw man arguments that go like this:
(1) Woman suffered wrong X [insert some lame sob story completely unconnected to SS entitlement]; therefore
(2) Man should be wronged by SS.

You just presented a straw man argument while railing against straw man arguments. Well done! Was that intentional humour or are you just oblivious?

Quote:

In the hypothetical case of wife that had to following husband's military postings, the fallacy is "had to". She doesn't have to. She can stop any time. Husband cannot stop paying SS any time because because he is being coerced into it.

The husband didn't "have to" let his useless wife run around with him either. As I said earlier in this thread, part of the issue is that military husband likely doesn't realize that letting wife run around with him and not work makes him liable for SS. It is not the SS that is the problem, it is the lack of understanding.

If the husband and wife move together to support husband's career, then they have both contributed to the career, and wife deserves to share in that income.

I'll list some actual problematic areas, if you want to be reasonable:

1) Lower earner decides not to work after divorce
2) Lower earner makes marginal contribution to success of higher earner, and still shares the spoils.
3) Lower earner repartners

...and even the above situations are not black and white. For example, a strong case can be made that repartnering should have no effect.

1ati2de · #97 09-18-2017, 10:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian

"The bimbo" may want more but often the "dick-head" wants to shirk his responsibility. If he hadn't married an uneducated, unmotivated person in the first place and endorsed the role of in-home domestic goddess plan, he would likely not be in the situation he is in.

Fair enough, so why does the court dictate the bimbo needs more money? What did the dick-head do to warrant the courts to kiss the poor bimbos ass? What reason with no children does the dick-head need to pay the bimbo money monthly? Why is the dickhead ordered more times than not to pay the bimbo? They BOTH survived without each other before and they can do the same after. We tried to make it work and it didn�t, move on, end of story? Nope off the bimbo goes crying to the lawyer.

Quote:

I believe that in situations where a couple decides that one will work outside the home and the other not work outside of the home that a wage should be paid as well as insurance purchased. This planning ahead would save the couple $$$ should the relationship fail. I also believe that pre-nups should be mandatory. If more time was spent doing this planning (than the gross squandering of money for a wedding) we might eventually see a change.

I am a big fan of insurance and will agree 100%. Upon going into a relationship ones net worth needs to be in a pre-nuptial agreement also.

Quote:

The problem is, as in my case, one can protect themselves all they want legally (corporately) but unfortunately family law trumps corporate law.

I'm sure there are many other problems good-intending people encounter. We could start a whole thread on bankruptcy.

You seem to think that SS is a hand-out and have difficulty accepting the fact that the homemaker/SAHM is more than a housekeeper/babysitter. Only when these SAHMs receive a fair wage for their work will people understand and value their contribution to the marriage (and yes, their contributions to husband's careers). Fortunately, current legislation recognizes this imbalance when marriages end.

As stated at the beginning of the thread that BOTH parents need to spend equal time with their children period. This will/should eliminate the housekeeper/babysitter BS that seems to run rampant with most cases. �I sacrificed�, all done with both parents spending equal time.

Quote:

If you don't want to pay SS then simply do not enter into a 'traditional marriage.' You have the choice.

Exactly, however I was given the tub of Vaseline and learned a lot about marriage laws in a painful way like so many other people. No idea why society isn�t educated on this farce.. oh wait its BIG money!

1ati2de · #98 09-18-2017, 11:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus

The husband didn't "have to" let his useless wife run around with him either. As I said earlier in this thread, part of the issue is that military husband likely doesn't realize that letting wife run around with him and not work makes him liable for SS. It is not the SS that is the problem, it is the lack of understanding.

If the husband and wife move together to support husband's career, then they have both contributed to the career, and wife deserves to share in that income.

I�m a little clouded on this topic so I�ll take a stab at it.

1. The military �wife� chose to support her husband and follow him around. NO SS
2. The military �wife� left her carrier and chose to follow him around. NO SS
3. The military �wife� worked while the military husband took classes to better his carrier and covered all expenses? Absolutely YES SS

Marriage and life is a choice, it is your choice to do what you want and how you live. We all make good and bad choices and no one pays for bad choices�. Family law yes!

1ati2de · #99 09-18-2017, 12:27 PM

I�m fascinated with society as once in any relationship one person owes another one something. Why is this the norm and not the exception? If I stay home to be a homemaker and have an easy life (No children) and the relationship does not work he/she owes me? Yes absolutely you had a free ride in the relationship, no headaches, worries, stress or any other means in one�s life to care for. Now by my choice I did fak all I can go after the person that gave me an easy life. Why do you think you are entitled to this? You had food, lodging and a pretty good life. WTF is society coming to?

I do not need to do nothing and I get paid. The more I read on the forum the more you see the barrier between the SS receivers and payer�s. People like to make their decision and blame the other partner.

Janus · #**100** 09-18-2017, 12:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de

1. The military �wife� chose to support her husband and follow him around. NO SS

The military wife had a good paying job. The military husband got a promotion. As a couple they decided that it was better to move, even though it would cost military wife her job. While it was overall a bad move for the wife, it was a good move overall as a couple, because husband would have lost his job if he didn't move.

Now they are divorced. Military husband is fine because as a couple they moved to enhance his career. Military wife's lifetime earnings are potentially permanently impacted.

Both made a choice. Why visit the consequences solely on the wife?

Alternatively, military wife didn't have a job before the move, but moving around pretty much destroyed her ability to make effective contacts and get a useful job. Same result as above. Both made a choice.

Quote:

2. The military �wife� left her carrier and chose to follow him around. NO SS

Most carrier plans are portable. Losing your cellphone contract sucks, but I totally agree, there should be no SS here.

Quote:

We all make good and bad choices and no one pays for bad choices�. Family law yes!

Couples make choices. Both people actually have lost. The wife has lost because her earnings will never be what they would have been had she not followed the husband around. The husband loses because he has to pay spousal.

The truth is, the biggest problem is the idea that it is reasonable for an adult to stay home and not provide for themselves. However, once that stupid decision is made, both parties to the decision should suffer.

The military example is a weak one for you, it is usually glaringly obvious which party gained and which party lost. Your hypothetical should be something along the lines of "Couple agreed that mom would stay home for a year to raise kids, but then she decided to never go back to work, and husband spent two years trying to convince her and then gave up and divorced her." Try that one on for size.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Going through a terrible time accepting the Justice System	PrincessKatie	Divorce Support	11	06-26-2011 03:09 AM
Dad will help other Dads	Decent Dad	Introductions	80	05-22-2010 12:47 PM
Lawyer calls for judicial inquiry into disfunctional family court system!	logicalvelocity	Political Issues	9	07-19-2009 09:41 PM
sick kids & time off work...	mcr	Parenting Issues	1	12-15-2008 02:48 PM
Canadians have a legal system, not a system of justice!	logicalvelocity	Political Issues	0	02-11-2008 11:41 PM

Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

User CP

New posts

Advertising

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

User Name
Password