Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Insanity or Stress?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by arabian View Post
    Links I think you are confusing SS with CS. FYI often in cases of long-term marriages there are not children of the marriage.

    SS is negotiable - not set in stone like CS. I cannot speak for how things are done in Quebec.
    I'm not confused, SS is not set in stone but the guidelies in the rest of Canada are pretty dominant. It IS actually Quebec that doesn't follow the guidelines even then the judges tend to look at over all household incomes and go with the ratios I am talking about.

    Originally posted by arabian View Post
    Each and every case deciding SS is different. Some people negotiate a lump sum payout. Other people negotiate a combination lump sum with monthly support. Much depends upon the needs of the recipient and the ability of the payor to pay. Sometimes the SS is ruled to be "indefinite" however that 'indefinite' spousal support can be set at $ 1.00/year.

    Yes there are many people who do not fare well and who do not 'divorce well' and often they are left without the resources (mental and financial) to pursue the matter in court. Often they just walk away from it all and collect welfare.
    Negotiating is one one thing - I am talking about people who end up in court. You think welfare will let a woman just get on welfare without making sure she has pursued her ex for every single dime she can get from him CS and SS, are you dreaming?



    In my case my ex misappropriated company assets (which I had paid for) and for the most part he hides his income. I do not have the financial resources required (private detective) to chase after him. I am but one example of many, many people who have not ended up in a good financial situation after a long-term marriage failed. I am responsible for my legal bill and any other bill I may have since our separation/divorce. This is the reality.

    On the up side, however, I will not lead a life of servitude to my ex in his old age. For that reason alone I feel like I am a winner.

    Oh and by the way my ex is currently having his lawyer deal with MEP about his arrears while he is off golfing in Scottsdale. He is pleading to MEP that he is financially in dire straights. LOL.
    I am not contesting people can be screwed due to actions of the ex what I am saying is that courts will divide the revenues like I said.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by Janibel View Post
      "I will provide you caselaw where women receive lump sums and monthly alimony. The things I cite are DIRECTLY from judgements I've read."

      I would be very interested in reading that case law, Links, could you post this for me please?Are these cases you mention from Quebec jurisdiction?
      Recherche - JuriBistro UNIK!

      Notice the Search Options on The Left

      If you don't find any let me know and I will get you some.

      Comment


      • #18
        While I am not bilingual, at a glance this seems to merely highlight a few cases and certainly does not show all of the cases where the recipient received little or nothing. Therefore I have no confidence in the source sited as it does not measure up to legitimate research. IMO.

        Again, I would emphasize that matters regarding lump sum and ongoing spousal support are decided upon in a case-by-case basis. There are many factors which can and do play out in court decisions.

        You'll have to do better than this to convince me.

        Comment


        • #19
          Links I think you need to realign your way of thinking about marriages in general. To help you think logically you should simply look at marriage as a business partnership between two people.

          I know many people who have gone into a business without investing any money. They have invested their unique skills. One friend did just this and the business grew and did very well. He could have taken the safe route and been a highly valued employee and retire on a pension. Instead he is now fabulously wealthy. He took a risk and it paid off for him. He took on partners and grew the business. The partners did not invest any money, rather they invested their time and areas of expertise. Today my friends and his partners are enjoying the fruits of their labour. If he were to decide to sell his business he would have to buy out his partners for a very hefty sum. Marriage is no different. It comes down to mathematics in the end. If, at the end of the marriage, there are no assets remaining but one person continues to earn substantial earnings then the other partner is paid for their contribution to the marriage because they do not have the marketable skills to return to the work force and make the same amount had they not entered into the marriage in the first place. When people go into a marriage and one person contributes their unique skills and the other works outside of the home they are both contributing. Your perception on what is "valuable" work is irrelevant. It is a partnership.

          I am getting very weary of your perception that women are lazy and don't contribute to marriage and rake their ex's with spousal support. Thankfully the laws in Canada recognize that people (women in particular) who have been in long term marriages are often financially disadvantaged when they divorce. Women who are in this position often do not have independent finances to pay for lawyers so they can obtain equity. It is not the taxpayers' responsibility to pay for disadvantaged women when the marriage fails. There is a moral and legal responsibility of the spouse to support the other person in the marriage.

          I recognize that you are very bitter about this but please do not be so quick to pass judgement on others who are going through the devastating situation, such as Janibel is currently going through right now,process of divorce after being married for many years without looking at things fairly and honestly.

          Comment


          • #20
            Links is stating a fact. Albeit it's a little backhanded in the way he presented it. But I agree with him: women of long term marriages DO get half the assets and income share with their husband. Another reality is, when they income share, they tend to do better as they are not taxed at the same rate as their former spouse.

            Listen: both my hubby and his ex "share" his income. He still pays tax on ALL his income he gets to keep. She pays none.

            And she gets the full CCTB (almost another 1K a month).

            That's not income "sharing" any more. As the scales are heavy to one side and lighter to the other.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by Serene View Post
              Links is stating a fact. Albeit it's a little backhanded in the way he presented it. But I agree with him: women of long term marriages DO get half the assets and income share with their husband. Another reality is, when they income share, they tend to do better as they are not taxed at the same rate as their former spouse.

              Listen: both my hubby and his ex "share" his income. He still pays tax on ALL his income he gets to keep. She pays none.

              And she gets the full CCTB (almost another 1K a month).

              That's not income "sharing" any more. As the scales are heavy to one side and lighter to the other.
              This isn't actually true Serene - Spousal Support is taxed the same way for either party. Child Support is the place where they scam via taxes...

              Comment


              • #22
                The imbalance that Serene is referring to is to offset the fact that many women lose most of their benefits, life insurance, medical insurance, private pensions etc. and have very little chance of recuperating these advantages after a certain age?

                One does not get full benefits working part time at Tim Horton's and older women who were SAHW for decades have little chance to gain decent wages with company perks. This is why IMO judges will rule in their favor when there is long term marriage.


                P.S. thanks for the links Links.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by Serene View Post
                  Links is stating a fact. Albeit it's a little backhanded in the way he presented it. But I agree with him: women of long term marriages DO get half the assets and income share with their husband. Another reality is, when they income share, they tend to do better as they are not taxed at the same rate as their former spouse.

                  Listen: both my hubby and his ex "share" his income. He still pays tax on ALL his income he gets to keep. She pays none.

                  And she gets the full CCTB (almost another 1K a month).

                  That's not income "sharing" any more. As the scales are heavy to one side and lighter to the other.
                  I think your husband needs a new accountant Serene (or you, like many simply do not understand how spousal support is taxed). What your husband pays in spousal support is 100% tax deductible. What your husband's ex receives in spousal support is 100% taxable. This income tax disparity (in favor of the payor) is taken into consideration when one has a good lawyer and a fair judge and is often the reason for disproportionate split of matrimonial assets and an increase in spousal support payment.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    No Arabian I don't need a new accountant. It may be taxable for her. But she still pays little to no tax. Last year she paid $57.

                    Yes he receives a tax break at source. But I tell you, he still does not take home she does in SS and CS.

                    Anyways its not debatable. It is what it is.

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Janibel - working at Tim's lol. She doesn't work at all! She doesn't need to with what we provide.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        One more thing: women have much more of an opportunity of recuperating financially when they make an effort to do so. Its too easy to purport the difficulties because of age and lack of experience, education, etc. As a life long scholar, employee and mother myself - it's hard at any age. Its even harder when (if) sitting on your ass all day and not putting wheels in motion.

                        In a year my husband is done is spousal. His ex still has no skills or education. What she will do after that is not my concern but I do often wonder why she didn't take advantage of 7 years of spousal and the opportunity to work and cohabitate with no claw back on spousal. To me it's time we'll wasted. She is bitter and angry now, I don't imagine her mindset will improve when she is down 20K a year in spousal lol

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          So she is only receiving equivalent to around minimum wage - no wonder she pays no tax.

                          By the sounds of things your husband's ex suffers from mental illness. I don't think anyone would jump to change places with her.

                          For those of us who are self-sufficient we are fortunate. Some people have not ever been in the workforce and have no skills. Yes she will undoubtedly have a difficult time adjusting to reality unless, like many, she finds a rich man to support her.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            No Arabian she is not making equivalent of minimum wage. Remember, SS is calculated after CS. Between CS and SS she is making 40Kk a year - TAX free. Which equates to $19.23/hour tax free.

                            Yes it's a simplistic way of looking at it. And yes I understand the CS is for the children. But my point is, my hubby keeps less than that an hour. If it's not good money for her, then how is what my hubby keeps (less than what she gets) fair to him? We have children 45 percent of the time too.

                            It's good money for her. Definitely better than a kick in the ass.

                            I'd agree on the mental health issue.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Well I agree it does cost big money to raise children. Children are entitled to be raised in the same standard of housing/lifestyle as had they been with both parents - if the payor can afford it. Your husband gets a nice tax benefit from the SS portion he pays. Even my litigation-happy ex agrees that it's better to pay me than the government (for 3 years while he was in bankruptcy he said that if he didn't pay me he would have to pay the trustee).

                              It's not forever. If your husband's ex hasn't used the time/money to upgrade her skills, and has no other source of income, then she will be in a pickle. She will probably try to get SS reviewed. Her lawyer would require a substantial retainer from her which might make her think twice about pursuing it though.

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by Serene View Post
                                One more thing: women have much more of an opportunity of recuperating financially when they make an effort to do so. Its too easy to purport the difficulties because of age and lack of experience, education, etc. As a life long scholar, employee and mother myself - it's hard at any age. Its even harder when (if) sitting on your ass all day and not putting wheels in motion.

                                In a year my husband is done is spousal. His ex still has no skills or education. What she will do after that is not my concern but I do often wonder why she didn't take advantage of 7 years of spousal and the opportunity to work and cohabitate with no claw back on spousal. To me it's time we'll wasted. She is bitter and angry now, I don't imagine her mindset will improve when she is down 20K a year in spousal lol
                                The sad thing is that she'll probably stay unemployed and try to live off the CS alone, which means the kids will suffer. That is, if she doesn't try to have the SS extended because she's still jobless.

                                Some people work hard and plan ahead, and some live in the moment and assume the future will take care of itself. Neither can understand the other.

                                Give me seven years of SS, and I could have a doctorate!

                                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