Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Salary Question

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

  • Salary Question

    I'm just asking a question and wondering some peoples thoughts.

    My base Salary is $67.000 and my work has a Product Incentive Plan which is a variable bonus program, paid monthly. This bonus is budgeted to pay monthly of approximately 20%. but it is never the same.

    If and when the STBX's Lawyer serves me for a spousal claim do they just base it off of you tax returns or do I have any argument that its not the same every month sometimes its only 2 to 3 hundred and other months more. I just would hate that if she does get all that she is asking for that some months I would be negative big time.. not that I am not already with child support and mortgage, taxes , bills and then all the kids expenses.


    The main question would be is this a valuable argument ?

  • #2
    You could counter that its based on the base amount and you settle up differences after tax time?

    Comment


    • #3
      Why not just base it off of the previous year's return?

      Over time, on average, you will pay the tabled amount.

      Comment


      • #4
        It's like any other expense that varies. You budget for it.

        Use your last year's line 150 as your income (or this year if you will have that before court), and it should all average out in the end.

        Comment


        • #5
          Zanman, there is really no incentive for any man to work beyond their base salary (No OT, No bonuses, No second job etc). Out of every dime you make 7 cents goes to Child and Spousal. 7 for her 3 for you. No incentive to work more or be proactive to get yourself ahead, because you cant on these CS/SS rules. However, your ex will gratefully take more if you are willing to work for it. More you work the less she needs to work....

          So why do it.....?

          Courts in Canada allow the lazy deadbeat ex-wives to rape the working man...and if we try to compensate in anyway like working more or attempting to get ourselves ahead somewhat, we are knocked down again by giving our ex's more of our hard earned money.

          The court only supports deadbeat mothers....ITS THE LAW... no sense in attempting to fight it.


          So in short...your most likely going to calculate you SS/CS on last years income. If that included bonuses...and next year you fall short on your bonuses, yes you are correct...you will take it in the teeth.

          I refuse to put more money in my ex's pocket so I refuse OT...and I spend more time with my kids....however my employer's patience is running short.

          Good luck....

          FYI. In Boston family law states that OT, second jobs and bonuses can NOT be used for CS/SS calculations....that's called equality.

          Comment


          • #6
            Thanks Everyone
            I kinda Figured that

            Comment


            • #7
              ^^^^ Do you think the law would ever change here? I.E. by working a second job, it wouldn't have to be inputted as income.

              I agree....if your hungry/hardworking the system seems quite prepared to knock you down. I liken the whole process to a jail sentence, except the penalty goes far longer.

              Comment


              • #8
                Generally, the following equation is considered to be axiomatically true:

                More CS = better for kids

                Any law that reduces CS would be bad for kids, and is therefore quite unlikely to happen.

                Comment


                • #9
                  Originally posted by Janus View Post
                  Generally, the following equation is considered to be axiomatically true:

                  More CS = better for kids

                  Any law that reduces CS would be bad for kids, and is therefore quite unlikely to happen.
                  That is only true IF CS goes to benefit the children. I can tell you that in my situation, my ex put CS into her own bank account and my kids seldom saw even a single dime. She used it as tax free spousal support and even admitted it in a mediation session.

                  This is what is pathetic in Canadian Family Law. It assumes all parents are responsible and will provide for their children (which most do) however in cases such as mine, she was free to pocket the monies for herself and my kids went without, until I had to step in and help out directly.

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Janus View Post
                    Generally, the following equation is considered to be axiomatically true:

                    More CS = better for kids

                    Any law that reduces CS would be bad for kids, and is therefore quite unlikely to happen.

                    I CHALLENGE THIS!!!!

                    More CS - better for kids???? I call BS!

                    How can you say that taking a money from one parent to give to another equates to better for the kids?? exactly how?

                    In my situation...I made good money when married, had a education fund setup for both children, took vacations in the South, visited family members across the country, exposed the kids to different cultures, enrolled the kids into extra programs such as dance, hockey, martial arts and had memberships at local kids facilities.

                    Today....they are lucky to get a candy on the weekend. Even pizza days at school had to be cut. It tears me up inside to have this happen to the kids...and people like you for some odd, uneducated reason think that increasing CS will improve their life!!!! NO reducing CS will improve their life!!!!!!

                    Exwife takes both CS and SS....nothing is spent on the kids!!!!! NOTHING!!!!

                    Explain THAT ONE!!!

                    REDUCTION
                    OF CS PUTS THE MONEY DIRECTLY INTO THE KIDS HANDS!!!!

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      It's really very simple. Let me explain it to you.

                      When two people live together and have children there is one home and perhaps a cottage at the lake. The "family" take vacations together, can afford to join in many activities. Live is peachy!

                      However, there when the happy family separates there is no longer 1 home. Two households are created. Each new household now has to pay utilities, pay mortgage/rent etc.

                      Do you follow me so far?

                      What once was one (1) family unit now becomes two (2) family units = double the cost.

                      It is the view of the Canadian society that children should not be penalized for the choices their parents made. The courts enforce the Canadian laws.

                      No the higher-income earner can't sock away his/her money without paying the lower-income/no-income earner. This is to even out the standard of living for the children.

                      So.... you may PERCEIVE that the children receive nothing while at the mother's home. After you tally up the costs of operating her home (as I'm sure you are well aware of what that might be) then make your generalized statement that "nothing is spent on the kids."

                      That is my explanation.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by arabian View Post
                        It's really very simple. Let me explain it to you.

                        When two people live together and have children there is one home and perhaps a cottage at the lake. The "family" take vacations together, can afford to join in many activities. Live is peachy!

                        However, there when the happy family separates there is no longer 1 home. Two households are created. Each new household now has to pay utilities, pay mortgage/rent etc.

                        Do you follow me so far?

                        What once was one (1) family unit now becomes two (2) family units = double the cost.

                        It is the view of the Canadian society that children should not be penalized for the choices their parents made. The courts enforce the Canadian laws.

                        No the higher-income earner can't sock away his/her money without paying the lower-income/no-income earner. This is to even out the standard of living for the children.

                        So.... you may PERCEIVE that the children receive nothing while at the mother's home. After you tally up the costs of operating her home (as I'm sure you are well aware of what that might be) then make your generalized statement that "nothing is spent on the kids."

                        That is my explanation.
                        Your Explanation FAILS!!! It remains one sided and never addressed the original comment "MORE CS = better for kids"

                        My ex spouse already takes more than half of my earning, and she chooses NOT to work due to the amount being "enough" for her.

                        Following me SO FAR?

                        So Please lets try this again shall we? How is MORE CS = better for the children? When clearly in my case (and more than half of divorce cases in North america), if my ex actually worked and thus CS was reduced...or CS was not even paid....LIFE for the kids would be far better.

                        I think the comment was meant to state: " More CS = better life for MOMMY and thus better for the kids too...well maybe. Because our Canadian Society does NOT believe in equality and uses "kids" as a means to take advantage of the situation. Shameful how women in Canada use their own children to get more FREE money. Deadbeat moms!!

                        Another angle shall we: Having everything thing they need to grow as kids including mom and Dad OR having nothing No education, No extra activities, No trips to see family, no pizza while friends have pizza etc.... and having a mom with big hair, nails, dress and shoes....LOL

                        Kids dont care if mom or dad lives in a big house!!! They just want their parents and have fun! Less CS gives them both parents and lots of fun. Mom needs to show the kids love and let go the money!!!

                        80% of kids from divorce resent their mom for taking money from Dad....remember that!!!

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          "80% of kids from divorce resent their mom for taking money from Dad....remember that!!!"

                          Only if good old Dad acts inappropriately and tells the kids this repeatedly.

                          Come on... you and I both know how simple it is to manipulate someone by simply failing to provide ALL of the information... particularly children. I envision you saying "hey kids" ... "If I didn't have to pay your mom so much money every month we could go to Disneyland every year."

                          "...having a mom with big hair, nails, dress and shoes...." If all you're paying is enough for this then what are you gurning bout?

                          Perhaps you're just cheap and are looking for excuses to not buy your kids a lousy piece of pizza? LOL

                          You chose to have children with the chronically-unemployed woman. You didn't just have 1 child... so this was a intentional act on your part. So.... you have consequences. Get over it already.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Originally posted by arabian View Post
                            [B]

                            You chose to have children with the chronically-unemployed woman. You didn't just have 1 child... so this was a intentional act on your part. So.... you have consequences. Get over it already.
                            At what point in Canadian law is the man informed that once he marries a woman he must pay for her for the rest of his life? When? No man actually signs this document. Its only when the women looks at him and says....sorry dont love you anymore time for a new man....and oh ya half your pension, half your personal belongings and half you bank account and half your future earnings...thanks".

                            I hear your argument over and over....it too fails. Only reason its law is due to the lobbying of the feminist movement. Equality does NOT exist!!

                            The big hair was in satire....keeping up yet?

                            You still failed to explain MORE CS = better for children.

                            Making fun that I can not pay for pizza is really not a nice comment...I hope you provide a better example of yourself for those "around" you....keeping up yet?

                            Yes I chose to have two children with a woman I loved....I would have had ten kids with her, as I had intentions of staying together for life....I do not chose nor did I ever chose to buy her and her boyfriend a house, a car and vacations (without the kids) in the south....and oh ya the big hair too. My society (lobbied by feminists) told me I had to...and therefore I do.

                            And the 80% statement....Are you saying 80% of dads are bad people? really?

                            MGTOW

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by Newfie76 View Post
                              At what point in Canadian law is the man informed that once he marries a woman he must pay for her for the rest of his life? When? No man actually signs this document. Its only when the women looks at him and says....sorry dont love you anymore time for a new man....and oh ya half your pension, half your personal belongings and half you bank account and half your future earnings...thanks".

                              I hear your argument over and over....it too fails. Only reason its law is due to the lobbying of the feminist movement. Equality does NOT exist!!

                              The big hair was in satire....keeping up yet?

                              You still failed to explain MORE CS = better for children.

                              Making fun that I can not pay for pizza is really not a nice comment...I hope you provide a better example of yourself for those "around" you....keeping up yet?

                              Yes I chose to have two children with a woman I loved....I would have had ten kids with her, as I had intentions of staying together for life....I do not chose nor did I ever chose to buy her and her boyfriend a house, a car and vacations (without the kids) in the south....and oh ya the big hair too. My society (lobbied by feminists) told me I had to...and therefore I do.

                              And the 80% statement....Are you saying 80% of dads are bad people? really?

                              MGTOW

                              I was parodying your "LOL" remark to me - re-read my comments and you will see that I too put an "LOL" at the end of my sentence. (nice try).

                              Men like you do not believe in wage parity (equal pay for work of equal value). Too bad about that because if you did then you might not have to pay your ex so much money. No... you instead want to blame "feminists" for all your woes.

                              You had kids... your wife didn't work and family was economically dependent upon your earnings... your marriage failed (reason is irrelevant)... you pay. Taxpayers certainly shouldn't be on the hook for your sorry lot in life. Taxpayers already pay megabucks for you and/or your ex to receive generous monthly "baby bonus" cheques, not to mention the generous tax deductions. Speaking of tax deductions, your SS portion of your payment to your ex is 100% tax deductible (which you already know).

                              Yes you can go through life and bitch and gurn about what you have to pay. Or... you can get on with life and encourage your children to fight for wage parity; making good choices in their future relationships; getting good educations so they can have fulfilling careers.

                              So if you don't want to work any more than you have to that is your choice.

                              In response to your question: "Are you saying 80% of dads are bad people? really?" Read your own post - I merely quoted what you said buddy.
                              Last edited by arabian; 02-16-2017, 01:33 AM.

                              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