Ottawa Divorce .com Forums

1ati2de · #**101** 09-18-2017, 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus

"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.

Exactly while I left. Free and happy now!! This is the reason SS should be terminated because " I can sit at home and do nothing" and this joke of a system will make sure I get paid. No one and I mean no one should be responsible for another in any relationship.

Janus · #**102** 09-18-2017, 01:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de

Exactly while I left. Free and happy now!! This is the reason SS should be terminated because " I can sit at home and do nothing" and this joke of a system will make sure I get paid. No one and I mean no one should be responsible for another in any relationship.

Two separate situations here. Imagine a couple is married for 20 years, then gets divorced. Wife works entire time, husband works as follows:

A) Husband never works, they don't have kids
B) Husband never works, but they have kids right away and he pretty much raises them from scratch (mini 3 month break for wife post maternity but other than that she's a lean in kinda mom)
C) Husband works for 5 years, then quits to raise kids and never goes back for last 15
D) Husband works for 10 years, then quits to raise kids and never goes back for last 10
E) Husband works for 15 years, then quits to raise kids and never goes back for last 5

For how many of those would SS be acceptable? Note that for cases A through D, wife could have left at any point because husband was a total loser, but she chose not to. Is that not her fault? Whose fault is it?

CoolGuy41 · #**103** 09-18-2017, 01:32 PM

I will repeat the gist what SS is again because it seems many lose sight of this concept:
SS is one person being coerced into working in part for the benefit of another person.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus

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

.

You have not found an A.

Quote:

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

I wrote "Most of the pro-SS arguments on this forum are straw man arguments." The word "most" makes my arg fall into your type 2. I also addressed the military husband example which was not straw-man.

Quote:

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.

No, the SS is a problem. Leaching off one person during the marriage should not entitle that person to additional leeching.

Quote:

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.

No, moving in together does not equate to supporting another person's career.

Quote:

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.

SS should be non-existent; then none of those situations would have an effect. There would be less litigation and less misery.

1ati2de · #**104** 09-18-2017, 02:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Janus

Two separate situations here. Imagine a couple is married for 20 years, then gets divorced. Wife works entire time, husband works as follows:

A) Husband never works, they don't have kids
B) Husband never works, but they have kids right away and he pretty much raises them from scratch (mini 3 month break for wife post maternity but other than that she's a lean in kinda mom)
C) Husband works for 5 years, then quits to raise kids and never goes back for last 15
D) Husband works for 10 years, then quits to raise kids and never goes back for last 10
E) Husband works for 15 years, then quits to raise kids and never goes back for last 5

For how many of those would SS be acceptable? Note that for cases A through D, wife could have left at any point because husband was a total loser, but she chose not to. Is that not her fault? Whose fault is it?

OK you seem to be missing the point, just because one person is in a relationship should NOT make one person liable for another. We don�t live in caveman days, arranged marriages, or where one is dictated whom to cohabitate with. We are free to do as we please and live our lives how we wish! So why do you think one person owes another one in society? Don�t care if it�s a man or woman, lesbian, or gay relationship with children or not.

CS absolutely as the child did nothing and fathers need to take responsibilities, one night or divorce.

Berner_Faith · #**105** 09-18-2017, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de

OK you seem to be missing the point, just because one person is in a relationship should NOT make one person liable for another. We don�t live in caveman days, arranged marriages, or where one is dictated whom to cohabitate with. We are free to do as we please and live our lives how we wish! So why do you think one person owes another one in society? Don�t care if it�s a man or woman, lesbian, or gay relationship with children or not.

CS absolutely as the child did nothing and fathers need to take responsibilities, one night or divorce.

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

CoolGuy41 · #**106** 09-18-2017, 03:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1ati2de

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.

arabian · #**107** 09-18-2017, 03:38 PM

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?

ifonlyihadknown · #**108** 09-18-2017, 03:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian

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.

CoolGuy41 · #**109** 09-18-2017, 06:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by arabian

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.

arabian · #**110** 09-18-2017, 08:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CoolGuy41

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.

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