Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Is water wet or dry?

Collapse
This topic is closed.
X
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    SS is the same as in: it still compensates the SAH parent.

    For the same reasons I cannot claim EI when I quit my job, or do not qualify for EI if I never work, I am not a supporter of SS. I truly do not believe the SAH parent is more or less deserving for making an informed choice to not pursue a career or to give up a career. Again, if there is a will, there is a way, it was a calculated risk and they made an informed decision to take that risk.

    Another interesting tidbit: SS is tax deductible for the payor and supposedly taxable by the recipient (the mom in our equation paid no tax last year despite a very good income of SS and other income).

    However, an intact family cannot elect to pay a salary to the SAH parent and tax that salary in the SAH parent's hands. This is no coincidence. It is also a violation of human rights as they "salary" is only taxable and payable subject to marital status: divorce. Yet both payments are compensatory (for this argument anyhow as I do understand there is compensatory and non compensatory SS). This is fact! A man tried to pay his wife a salary for her domestic and child care duties while in an intact marriage and it was denied by CRA... I have looked for the article but can't find it

    Comment


    • #47
      Originally posted by standing on the sidelines View Post
      but didn't they get the value of their contribution by having a roof over their heads, bills paid, food on the table etc?? They never forked out money so what is repaid? Does that mean the one who paid all that should now get half back? They also got to witness lots of firsts if there are kids involved. Does the supporting spouse get compensated for missing stuff like that as they had to work to pay bills etc?
      I’m not sure, aren’t there studies about the salaries of a SAHP? Ah – value of $118,905 in 2014. See below, source salary.com
      Salary.com's 14th Annual Mom Salary Survey - Salary.com

      Offensive that they presume the stay at home is "mom", but we can agree this is a salary for stay at home? Far in excess of a parent’s one-half proportional share of the annual cost of P&I mortgage, taxes, utilities, groceries, etc. [I need a lesson in acknowledging source material].

      It’s not for me, but I’m not going to disparage a joint decision made by a family for one parent to stay at home and focus on raising their children. Some people have different values when it comes to raising their kids, and I’m not going to belittle those values.

      And I suspect one of the many reasons a family would make the decision to have a stay at home parent, is specifically for the reason that one of them will always be there for those first moments ~ some people care about that crap. Bless my daycare provider - When my kidlet was young, she would take pictures and tell me about those first moments.
      Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by Serene View Post
        SS is the same as in: it still compensates the SAH parent.

        For the same reasons I cannot claim EI when I quit my job, or do not qualify for EI if I never work, I am not a supporter of SS. I truly do not believe the SAH parent is more or less deserving for making an informed choice to not pursue a career or to give up a career. Again, if there is a will, there is a way, it was a calculated risk and they made an informed decision to take that risk.

        Another interesting tidbit: SS is tax deductible for the payor and supposedly taxable by the recipient (the mom in our equation paid no tax last year despite a very good income of SS and other income).

        However, an intact family cannot elect to pay a salary to the SAH parent and tax that salary in the SAH parent's hands. This is no coincidence. It is also a violation of human rights as they "salary" is only taxable and payable subject to marital status: divorce. Yet both payments are compensatory (for this argument anyhow as I do understand there is compensatory and non compensatory SS). This is fact! A man tried to pay his wife a salary for her domestic and child care duties while in an intact marriage and it was denied by CRA... I have looked for the article but can't find it
        Serene, why do you suggest that a SAH parent is not educated or qualified? I and many of my friends are professionals, accountants, lawyers and physicians and choose to put our careers on the back burner as our spouces were high income earners, and truly at what point is $$$$$$$ not enough?

        I have 2 close friends both lawyers that choose to stay at home as I did. One spouce is also a lawyer the other spouce a dentist. You are very presumpious and not reflective of what is out there.
        I am re-establishing myself in the finance world and loving it. My children are adults and I am working.

        I have another friend a dentist married to a dentist and she has choosen to work part time and teach throughout her marriage. Just because a parent chooses to be at home full time or part time doesnt suggest in any form that she is not educated nor inteligent nor productive.

        I loved my career being at home and raised 2 amazing children and regret not a thing. It was hard work and long hours and there is no way that my x's salary paying for food compensated me for what I contributed.
        My x persued a successful career and I was there backing him all the way and I am not apologizing for collecting SS. I had intended to return to work once there was not a full time job waiting for me at home and I have followed through. My potential for financial gain is not equal to my x's and why would I not be deserving of the fruits of my labour.

        There is no point arguing this. It's like arguing the abuse of the welfare system, you don't have to agree or like it, but it is the law and truly you can cry and whine as much as you like, I will be collecting SS forever, just as I am a mom forever.

        I understand for the next spouce it is a sore spot. I can imagine that your husband handing over hard earned money to someone he no longer loves or cares for and you may feel is undeserving can sure put a bite in your side.
        Once there are blended families there are multiple issues to deal with.

        Comment


        • #49
          Originally posted by Serene View Post
          Critically analyzing Arabian's words: If you GAVE UP YOUR CAREER - why are you being compensated? By your own words you made an informed decision.

          Ah, it's the 21st century - with a little hard work and elbow grease you can have it all - a career, family and never ever be in this predicament.

          #feminismrocks!
          ummm you sure don't know how to "critically analyse" anything it seems. You continue to make incorrect presumptions about me personally and generalize about others who are receiving SS. You just don't get it and I'm not going to waste my time on this any more. You are obstinate and can't look at things from someone else's point of view. It's your way and that's it.

          Fortunately for me and others who fight for their rights, legal decisions are made by educated, intelligent people.

          BTW - I gave up my career to go into business with my husband (another career which required many hundreds of thousands of dollars of personal investment).
          Last edited by arabian; 05-16-2014, 11:45 PM.

          Comment


          • #50
            Serene, why do you suggest that a SAH parent is not educated or qualified?
            I am not suggesting that SAH parent's are not educated or qualified. I am saying if they made the decision to forgo a career, education and/or to cease work it is a risk that they made and one must accept the risks.

            I and many of my friends are professionals, accountants, lawyers and physicians and choose to put our careers on the back burner as our spouces were high income earners, and truly at what point is $$$$$$$ not enough?
            I have no idea what you are saying here...

            I have 2 close friends both lawyers that choose to stay at home as I did. One spouce is also a lawyer the other spouce a dentist. You are very presumpious and not reflective of what is out there.
            I am re-establishing myself in the finance world and loving it. My children are adults and I am working.
            I am not presumptuous. You are dicing words. I am stating my opinion. My opinion and this forum are free.

            I have another friend a dentist married to a dentist and she has choosen to work part time and teach throughout her marriage. Just because a parent chooses to be at home full time or part time doesnt suggest in any form that she is not educated nor inteligent nor productive.
            Repeat of another paragraph above. No where did I say "all stay at home parents are uneducated or intelligent or productive". In fact, I have never used the word intelligent or productive in this thread.
            I loved my career being at home and raised 2 amazing children and regret not a thing. It was hard work and long hours and there is no way that my x's salary paying for food compensated me for what I contributed.
            I am not debating hard work. And hard work is subjective. To each their own. Everyone has the same amount of hours in a day - have you considered that? It is what we do in those same 24 hours a day that is to be analyzed. However, it is not a competition.

            My x persued a successful career and I was there backing him all the way and I am not apologizing for collecting SS.
            I am not asking for you to apologize. I bet your x liked having his own cheerleader at home. I do not mean this disrespectfully, read below.

            I had intended to return to work once there was not a full time job waiting for me at home and I have followed through. My potential for financial gain is not equal to my x's and why would I not be deserving of the fruits of my labour.
            Our past decisions/choices sometimes affect our future realities.
            There is no point arguing this. It's like arguing the abuse of the welfare system, you don't have to agree or like it, but it is the law and truly you can cry and whine as much as you like, I will be collecting SS forever, just as I am a mom forever.
            Whining? I am stating an opinion.

            I understand for the next spouce it is a sore spot. I can imagine that your husband handing over hard earned money to someone he no longer loves or cares for and you may feel is undeserving can sure put a bite in your side.Once there are blended families there are multiple issues to deal with.
            It is not a sore spot for my husband or I to pay the child support or spousal support that we do. I will draw your attention to something: We willfully engaged and agreed to pay full guideline child support despite having children over 40% of the time and paying almost all additional costs (note I did not say extraordinary because none could ever be accepted as extraordinary costs).

            We also pay a large amount of SS without any conditions whatsoever for a fixed term that exceed the typical norm. Meaning, mom can and has been living in a common law relationship since almost the date of separation and has worked full time for many years. She is not penalized with a claw back of SS because WE ensured that the SA was written that way... all that to say we willfully offered and signed this agreement. We have no regrets whatsoever and for many reasons. I realize these statements may seem contradictory to my previous sentiments about SS but in reality they are not. We felt that offering this financial arrangement would serve a purpose and potentially alleviate much bickering (financial and otherwise) between mom and dad. We were wrong (so says even today's court appearance). However, we have never tried to change the terms of these financial arrangements. Meaning - this is testament to the fact that we do not consider this to be a sore spot. We stand firm with the AGREEMENT that we committed to. Regardless of what the future held and what came undone. I see this as no different that entering into an agreement with a spouse to SAH and then trying to renogotiate the terms when the marriage fails for SS...

            And I will never be a SS recipient because I have already made that choice, regardless of any legal entitlement. For the record, I personally am entitled to CS and CHOOSE not to be a recipient despite the same legal entitlement. I am not hard pressed for that money. And I do not regret the informed decision I made so long ago.

            All that to say, it is what it is.

            And when I make an agreement - I stick to it.

            Comment


            • #51
              "Our past decisions/choices sometimes affect our future realities. "

              I searched long and hard to find something that I would agree with you, and I found it!!
              The statement you made is ohhh so true for my x, he made the decision to marry me, he made the decision for me to stay at home, he made the decision to cheat with transsexuals, he made the decision to lie about his income, he made all the decisions to effect his future reality, PAYING ME SS FOREVER.

              Serene, sit back and review your post. You have a sentence or two to reply every statement I have made and when it comes to hitting the nerve of what your x has to pay, it's a complete novel. Interesting, I guess it does hit a sore spot.
              As far as you receiving SS, we know how the system views that, just remember you are number 2 on the list and the 1st wife is Priority.
              You would be entitled to her left-overs.
              Last edited by momforever1956; 05-17-2014, 05:44 AM.

              Comment


              • #52
                I have been following this thread for a few days now and there are a few things I agree with and a few things I don't.

                When people like Momforever and Arabian got married that whole dynamic of marriage was different. It was the same as my parents. They were married in a time where mothers stayed home and parents worked. In that time it was fairly easy for parents to make that decision. Fast forward 20-30 years and not only the dynamic of marriage has changed but our lives and world as a whole have changed. It is no longer feasible economically for many parents to stay home. Sure for some it is possible but for the average family it isn't.

                SS for people who have been married 30 years is reasonable to me, as they were in that time frame of being a sthp as the norm. They shouldn't be cut off financially because the marriage breaks down. What I don't believe in is SS being awarded to a short term marriage because one spouse makes 10x the other. Most times when this happens the other spouse has a career but because spouse one makes $200k a year. Nothing was sacrificed for the family, the second spouses career did not suffer but this whole 'standard of living' stuff is BS.

                What would happen if spouse one got sick and couldn't work? Or past away without life insurance? The standard of living would decrease with no one to pick up the short falls and the family would have to adjust.

                SS has a place for old time marriages but I don't think it has a place this day and age.

                Comment


                • #53
                  I might be number 2 and I might be entitled to left overs - but you clearly haven't read my posts - I do not need or want SS as I am sufficiently self supporting. Period.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Now this is quite the payout:

                    Millionaire moves mistress into his home and asks former wife to be their housekeeper

                    Housekeeper? Not a chance.
                    Last edited by arabian; 05-17-2014, 08:36 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by arabian View Post
                      Now this is quite the payout:

                      Millionaire moves mistress into his home and asks former wife to be their housekeeper

                      Housekeeper? Not a chance.

                      One of the comments stated:''Not bad after all she served him for long period of time. Life is a strange thing. These kind of things happen every where in the world. The women are treated badly. Men think they can do away with them when ever they feel like it. Replace the old one and get new pair of young legs. The decision of the Court is fair. She got the 10 million for her services. Fortunate woman."

                      I agree with Serene in saying that there should not be any SS awarded in cases of short term marriages. But after spending over 25 years working towards a common goal, the only reasonable solution is for both spouses to walk away with an equal share of the pie - an equal share at a financial future as well.

                      IMO it makes no difference who did what, who earned what - after a quarter of a century of merged financials, neither has the right to simply divorce without consequences. I'm glad the courts recognize this as fact.

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        I would dearly love to find someone who would go into business with me and after some years, when we decide to end the business, that person would be content to would walk away without anything.

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Here's a situation in which I think SS for a medium-term marriage makes sense:

                          My bf pays spousal support to his ex. They were married for less than 10 years and had two kids. His job involved a lot of relocating and unpredictable hours. His then-wife stayed home with the kids and did bits of work here and there (it turns out she was also doing a few other things, including the neighbours, but that's a different story). After the marriage ended, she was awarded a finite, time-limited amount of SS that was keyed to the cost of getting a diploma in a high-demandfield so she could be self-supporting.

                          Bf doesn't love writing the cheques every month, but he recognizes that a) if his ex hadn't stayed home with the kids, there wouldn't have been any kids, as his job (then) was incompatible with hands-on parenting, and there were no good child care options; and b) it's in nobody's interests for his ex to be on public assistance because she doesn't have in-demand skills.

                          To me, this is how SS should work - the rationale is clear, the amount is clear, and the goal is clear - economic autonomy for both parties. What form SS takes will vary according to the circumstances of the marriage - my bf's situation is very different from Arabian or mom1956.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Spousal support can even be relevant for short-term marriages. The resultant Order reflects the need of the recipient (even if it be for a very short duration), ability of one party to pay the other, and the circumstances.

                            An example would be that an agreement was made for a spouse to attend a 2-year college program. Before the completion of the program (mid-term) the marriage ended. Lump sum SS is paid for remainder of current term of study.

                            There are many reasons on CanLii why SS entitlement is awarded for short, medium and long-term marriages.

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              I think the point is just because it's the law does not make it right morally or ethically.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                Originally posted by Once.is.enough View Post
                                I think the point is just because it's the law does not make it right morally or ethically.
                                Actually, I think the point is morals differ. Our current ethical system governs payment of ss.

                                By the way, the answer is: wet.
                                Start a discussion, not a fire. Post with kindness.

                                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