Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

What is your opinion??

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

  • #91
    Originally posted by Links17 View Post
    Yes and No, I'm not devaluing her contribution as a SAHM. I think that is a valuable investment and I supported my ex in that endeavour and even if I were to go through it again and knew I would get divorce I would probably not have "obliged" her to get a job.

    In terms of a person X's earning potential it is just an economic reality that unless you have a certain education/degree you often don't make a great salary. Even university graduates in humanities often make below the median wage.

    I am just arguing that when the guy makes tonnes of money lets say he can earn 300k/year and the wife can earn 40k/year they will often agree for the wife to stay home because its not worth it BUT if/when they divorce that guy is going to be giving her 50% of 300k instead of even just replacing the 40k. That's not fair because the original premise of the agreement wasn't that of a full economic partnership it was the fact that somebody would not be making a significant financial contribution through their time so it would be "better" (not economically) for them to just stay home and perform some duties which REALLY REALLY you could hire a housekeeper to do.



    I expect:
    a) for her to go out and try to earn at the point of seperation.
    b) I will soften the transition over a few months-year
    c) and compensate her for loss to her earning potential (keeping in mind it was not likely to be high)
    The big problem is the "income sharing" rather than the analysis of what income the spouse REALLY lost out on if did an assessment.


    Yes, exactly.
    We're not married anymore why should I pay for her other than the factors above.
    I pay child support (which is sometimes disguised SS) that is for the kids.
    When the kids are with me, she doesn't pay me to care for them.


    I had a short marriage and a lazy ex, the judge saw that and the conditions are relatively tight. I'm paying because I want to and my career is too valuable to throw away for 25k. I'm paying SS cuz I was trusting and nice, that's over now to save the others of my gender!!!
    You've limited her potential with your bias. In all honesty, the people around me that make the most $ are not highly educated. They're hard workers, in the trades, with apprenticeship education. Some of them are women as well.

    You're also in a much different situation than the majority of couples out there. If you're earning that much, then it's no wonder spousal support was ordered. Even with a full time job throughout the marriage she was probably inclined to get spousal anyway. And as for your point c above, who knows what her earning potential actually was? You're supposing it wasn't good, but how could you possibly know where she'd be at right now if the whole course of her life changed? It's supposition at best. She could have landed a job at Toyota full time - where all you need is a grade 12 to make $75 to $100G a year on an assembly line. You have no idea where her employment could have ended up.

    You see, marriage is a 50/50 partnership, no matter who earns what amount. And you joined that 50/50 partnership.

    Comment


    • #92
      50-50.........even if you earn 100% of it.

      Links, every guy that pays SS feels screwed, and every woman collecting it feels entitled to more than their fair share. I learnt that the hard way. it's just the way it is.

      Never confuse Justice with the Law. It will drive you crazy.

      Comment


      • #93
        Originally posted by arabian View Post
        [QUOTE... But there's no accountability on behalf of the working person who allowed, lived with, tolerated or, perhaps even wanted the "traditional" one person stay at home relationship. You helped create the beast that is her financial dependency, but don't want to accept the reality it brings.
        I concur and I believe this is taken into consideration when determining eligibility for SS. The agreement that one party would stay at home was mutual. If the payor didn't agree then why was the contract not terminated immediately?[/QUOTE]

        NO accountability? So, your, saying that if these partners agree that one of them is going to stay at home at take care of the home and family that the ONLY one who is accountable for that financially, after the relationship ends is the payor? AND Surely you are not suggesting that if one person loses their job you should file for divorce or otherwise end the relationship immediately based on loss of employment?

        Comment


        • #94
          Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
          It existed in the OP's statement. They chose for one to stay at home and take care of the needs of everyone. If it weren't a relationship of that level, why would someone just choose to support someone else...especially since it goes against their own sensibilities (which it appears it does by the OPs statements).

          You can't have it both ways, and I think common law is a way for some people to think they have it both ways.

          Again, why allow someone to "leech off you" at all if it bothers you that much. At the time, it obviously didn't.

          I had a boyfriend live with me for a year, in my home. In that time he racked up credit card debt, unknowingly to me, in my name. Yes, he's responsible for the charges...but seriously, what kind of idiot was I to allow him access to those cards? I have responsibility in there as well....and believe me, I bear it.

          If it wasn't a joint decision for one to stay home, then why would the other one just support them because?
          As you have pointed out here. One leeched off the other, as your boyfriend leeched off of you. The one who did the supporting, I am sure, did so because they cared for the other one. Like you did for that boyfriend, before you finally had enough. Why else would someone put up with that? So, tell us, did he get Spousal Support? If it had been a longer relationship, before you clued in , do you really think he would have deserved it? Just because you cared enough to support him, and trusted him, and maybe thought he'd get a job eventually, doesn't mean he should get SS does it?

          Comment


          • #95
            Originally posted by soonfree!! View Post
            As you have pointed out here. One leeched off the other, as your boyfriend leeched off of you. The one who did the supporting, I am sure, did so because they cared for the other one. Like you did for that boyfriend, before you finally had enough. Why else would someone put up with that? So, tell us, did he get Spousal Support? If it had been a longer relationship, before you clued in , do you really think he would have deserved it? Just because you cared enough to support him, and trusted him, and maybe thought he'd get a job eventually, doesn't mean he should get SS does it?
            Actually he didn't get spousal support. He got arrested for beating the crap out of me. Duly charged, pled guilty and then deported. And, even then I didn't get my money back.

            I would have preferred to pay spousal.

            Comment


            • #96
              Originally posted by soonfree!! View Post
              As you have pointed out here. One leeched off the other, as your boyfriend leeched off of you. The one who did the supporting, I am sure, did so because they cared for the other one. Like you did for that boyfriend, before you finally had enough. Why else would someone put up with that? So, tell us, did he get Spousal Support? If it had been a longer relationship, before you clued in , do you really think he would have deserved it? Just because you cared enough to support him, and trusted him, and maybe thought he'd get a job eventually, doesn't mean he should get SS does it?
              He didn't leech....he stole. He used credit cards in my name for his purchases. Very different.

              Comment


              • #97
                Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                Actually he didn't get spousal support. He got arrested for beating the crap out of me. Duly charged, pled guilty and then deported. And, even then I didn't get my money back.

                I would have preferred to pay spousal.
                Ok, I'll agree he was a coward of a man to put his hands on a woman, an deserves what he got as a result, and probably much more. However, as I asked, If you had been together long enough to be considered common law, do you believe her deserved SS? The fact that he assaulted you is a different matter. That would give you grounds to separate or divorce. The "NO FAULT" rule would have no bearing on the SS. So do you agree?

                Comment


                • #98
                  Originally posted by Rioe View Post
                  Only for the duration of the marriage. If the marriage ends, the economic partnership should also end, as did the social and emotional and other partnership aspects.
                  I think this is exactly the way it should be. Why does someone deserve spousal support at all? If it was known up front and supported by law, that there was no lengthy support if a marriage was to break down then wouldn't the stay at home partner do more to ensure they had a plan "B"? Doesn't this make sense?

                  Comment


                  • #99
                    Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                    He didn't leech....he stole. He used credit cards in my name for his purchases. Very different.

                    I suspect that if you were married, and you told someone your wife or husband "stole" YOUR credit card, you'd get a funny look or two. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, he stole from you, he was your boyfriend not your husband, and he had no right. I am saying that in slightly different circumstances this could, and is, viewed very differently.

                    Comment


                    • Originally posted by soonfree!! View Post
                      Ok, I'll agree he was a coward of a man to put his hands on a woman, an deserves what he got as a result, and probably much more. However, as I asked, If you had been together long enough to be considered common law, do you believe her deserved SS? The fact that he assaulted you is a different matter. That would give you grounds to separate or divorce. The "NO FAULT" rule would have no bearing on the SS. So do you agree?
                      He only lived with me a year, so I doubt he would have been in any position to receive it despite the end result.

                      My point was, and still is, that I had responsibility in allowing the debt to be racked up. I didn't look out for myself, that was dumb. I can't blame that dumbness on someone else. That's all mine.

                      Comment


                      • Originally posted by soonfree!! View Post
                        I suspect that if you were married, and you told someone your wife or husband "stole" YOUR credit card, you'd get a funny look or two. Don't get me wrong, I agree with you, he stole from you, he was your boyfriend not your husband, and he had no right. I am saying that in slightly different circumstances this could, and is, viewed very differently.
                        He was a boyfriend. Cards were in my name alone and he used them without my knowledge or consent. I didn't check bills because I wasn't expecting bills. There was nothing on them before he got them.

                        It was theft. He was even charged with theft. But, can't get blood from a stone....especially a stone that's been deported back across the pond.

                        Comment


                        • Originally posted by soonfree!! View Post
                          I concur and I believe this is taken into consideration when determining eligibility for SS. The agreement that one party would stay at home was mutual. If the payor didn't agree then why was the contract not terminated immediately?
                          NO accountability? So, your, saying that if these partners agree that one of them is going to stay at home at take care of the home and family that the ONLY one who is accountable for that financially, after the relationship ends is the payor? AND Surely you are not suggesting that if one person loses their job you should file for divorce or otherwise end the relationship immediately based on loss of employment?[/QUOTE]

                          That's not at all what I was saying. My point was, in part, your decision for her to stay home, not earn an income despite it going against the sensibilities you claim to have. That is your cross to bear. Like my cross is trusting those cards in your desk drawer will not be used by people in your house without your knowledge.

                          Comment


                          • Originally posted by arabian View Post
                            My point is that marriages evolve. Often people start out with the best of intentions, working together the common good of the family. In the example I provided the young woman has no money to pay for anything. She can't just put her kids in daycare because husband controls the money. She is in a disadvantaged situation and the courts recognize that when people leave marriages they should do so on equal footing. In this case the woman has two choices - stay in the marriage or get a lawyer to go to court on her behalf and request interim financial support so she can get her life on track. Getting a lawyer to assist her will present many challenges as well.

                            I think you get the picture.

                            Until you have walked in someone else's shoes it is unfair to assume they can instantly become self-sufficient. That is all I am saying.
                            I dont assume she should BECOME self sufficient after the marriage ENDS. I expect that she should have ALWAYS BEEN sufficient; married or not. She should have insisted upon it and not expected or assumed that her spouse or common law partner was going to pay her bills for her forever.

                            You might just need to rely on yourself. Since your story says a young mother, i assume you meant this example for decade, and not the 1950's. So I'd like to know where she got the idea that it was ok to just be "looked after" in the first place? What was this poor woman taught? An older woman of a different era may be excused for the ideas of the time. However, since woman's equality has come to the forefront of our society and woman's groups ask for equality. What was she thinking?? Sounds like she made lots of bad choices, marrying the jerk you describe (stereotype), that would leave her and her kids without any money to get by until they split their assets. I think her contribution to the family was substantial, but that will be paid out in the division of assets. Spousal Support should not be viewed as a long term nor life long pension for anyone. Its wrong, its modern day "slavery", and should be likewise abolished.

                            Comment


                            • Originally posted by MS Mom View Post
                              NO accountability? So, your, saying that if these partners agree that one of them is going to stay at home at take care of the home and family that the ONLY one who is accountable for that financially, after the relationship ends is the payor? AND Surely you are not suggesting that if one person loses their job you should file for divorce or otherwise end the relationship immediately based on loss of employment?
                              That's not at all what I was saying. My point was, in part, your decision for her to stay home, not earn an income despite it going against the sensibilities you claim to have. That is your cross to bear. Like my cross is trusting those cards in your desk drawer will not be used by people in your house without your knowledge.[/QUOTE]

                              UMMM?, My decision for HER to stay home? I never said anything about a HER did I? Perhaps your confused by my resposes to other posts. I never mentioned sexes in my OP.
                              So, your sensibilites tell you that its ok for someone like your ex-boyfriend to get spousal support from you if you were the main income earner? Simply, divide up your collective assets, and debts. Then you continue to pay for him to get on his feet for a period of time? Forever if your where together for a long time, or married for many years? Really??

                              Comment


                              • If you're seriously suggesting that someone who stole from me, beat the crap out of me and was sufficiently charged enough to have their work permit withdrawn and deported from the country is deserved of spousal support then you're seriously deluded.

                                There was nothing in anything that I said that should make you believe he wasn't an income earner as well. Just because he stole, it doesn't mean he was unemployed.

                                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