Ottawa Divorce .com Forums


User CP

New posts

Advertising

  Ottawa Divorce .com Forums > Main Category > Political Issues

Political Issues This forum is for discussing the political aspects of divorce: reform to divorce laws, men's rights, women's rights, injustices in the divorce system, etc.

Reply
 
Thread Tools
  #61  
Old 08-11-2016, 04:24 PM
FightingForFamily FightingForFamily is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 994
FightingForFamily will become famous soon enough
Default

When you pay a special assessment on a condo, you still get the condo. In fact you benefit directly from the money being put into upgrading or fixing the building. It's an investment (of a sort, even if not by choice) in your property, or at least a cost associated with you owning it, living in it or renting it to others.

If you sold the place and moved out and the condo corp was able to come after you for special assessments after you left and no longer had the use of the house, were unable to use the upgrades and derived zero benefit from it then maybe your example would be a bit closer to that of spousal support.

I think in that case you might feel the system was not fair.

Consider it analogous to leaving the condo, moving out and still being forced to continue paying the rent or mortgage on it for another 5 years. Try paying rent on two homes at once and see if you can move on with your life. Try buying a new 60" LCD television every 30 days for 5 years. That's what spousal costs in real terms.

Last edited by FightingForFamily; 08-11-2016 at 04:28 PM.
Reply With Quote
  #62  
Old 08-11-2016, 04:32 PM
FightingForFamily FightingForFamily is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 994
FightingForFamily will become famous soon enough
Default

More amusingly, your ex was not financially responsible. At least you had the freedom to leave. Were you ordered to keep paying his bills so he could continue his irresponsible spending after you split? I mean, you supported his bad habits while you were together. So it's totally fair you should continue to subsidize his lifestyle since he was used to it and you were OK with it when you were together.

You said you didn't get a chunk of equalization to make up for your loss during the relationship. The reality is spousal support is the OPPOSITE of this. You would be forced to continue paying for his needs, not compensated for your losses.
Reply With Quote
  #63  
Old 08-11-2016, 04:38 PM
Links17 Links17 is offline
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,166
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

Magic3's posts were very timely - child support for the children - HAHA, yeah right!
Reply With Quote
  #64  
Old 08-11-2016, 06:16 PM
arabian's Avatar
arabian arabian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 10,598
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FightingForFamily View Post
Arabian: My former spouse was out of the workforce for only 2 years total, for maternity leave and stress leave. I paid full SS and CS for half the length of the marriage, which corresponded with school starting. It's done now. She planned the divorce for about a year and then stole everything from the bank, changed the locks and tried to have me arrested as a sexual predator. She also ended up keeping everything she stole, ending up with more than 70% of the assets while I became essentially homeless, renting furnished rooms in basements for a few months at a time, sleeping on couches or in later years staying with my girlfriend while paying out most of my salary to my ex. I borrowed vehicles from family to see my son since she refused to drive him. For awhile I had supervised visits in McDonalds.

The good news is my SS has been done for a few years and while I will never be able to afford a house or retire, I have a normal standard of living again. I rent a townhouse, a own car and I still have access to my son in spite of her efforts.

Personally I think CS table amounts are much too high. My ex collects close to 50% of her income from CS and child benefits. To me this just illustrates that CS is almost entirely being paid for her benefit, not his. She remains single but has a single family home and a new car. She doesn't work outside the home because she doesn't have to or want to. Her custody of our child and access to my paycheque keeps her confortable enough.

She was a self proclaimed feminist, determined to be a strong, independent career oriented woman. But two university degrees later (paid for 100% by her parents), she walked away from her pension, benefits and a great salary from the school board to remain a permanent SAHM (paid for 50% by me, some by her parents).

Just re-affirming what I said. You can marry a woman with good prospects and earning potential and still end up a chump due to how the system works.

So your ex is being supported by primarily by her parents and you pay child support.

Presumably you are living with someone who subsidizes you? Perhaps the person you are living with receives CS or SS from an ex? or...... he/she is working and contributing jointly to your current living situation?

One big circle.
Reply With Quote
  #65  
Old 08-11-2016, 07:05 PM
MS Mom MS Mom is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2013
Posts: 1,160
MS Mom is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FightingForFamily View Post
Arabian: My former spouse was out of the workforce for only 2 years total, for maternity leave and stress leave. I paid full SS and CS for half the length of the marriage, which corresponded with school starting. It's done now. She planned the divorce for about a year and then stole everything from the bank, changed the locks and tried to have me arrested as a sexual predator. She also ended up keeping everything she stole, ending up with more than 70% of the assets while I became essentially homeless, renting furnished rooms in basements for a few months at a time, sleeping on couches or in later years staying with my girlfriend while paying out most of my salary to my ex. I borrowed vehicles from family to see my son since she refused to drive him. For awhile I had supervised visits in McDonalds.

The good news is my SS has been done for a few years and while I will never be able to afford a house or retire, I have a normal standard of living again. I rent a townhouse, a own car and I still have access to my son in spite of her efforts.

Personally I think CS table amounts are much too high. My ex collects close to 50% of her income from CS and child benefits. To me this just illustrates that CS is almost entirely being paid for her benefit, not his. She remains single but has a single family home and a new car. She doesn't work outside the home because she doesn't have to or want to. Her custody of our child and access to my paycheque keeps her confortable enough.

She was a self proclaimed feminist, determined to be a strong, independent career oriented woman. But two university degrees later (paid for 100% by her parents), she walked away from her pension, benefits and a great salary from the school board to remain a permanent SAHM (paid for 50% by me, some by her parents).

Just re-affirming what I said. You can marry a woman with good prospects and earning potential and still end up a chump due to how the system works.
Our definitions of financial independence are different. A financially independent woman doesn't go on "stress leave", they go on vacation and get back at 'er.

A financially independent woman is someone who can survive on her own under any circumstance life may throw at them. Using all resources they possibly can to scrape together enough to get through the month.

I have chronic illness, never had a sick leave, ever. If I had to go on sick leave, I'd find ways to make ends meet.

You married someone who appeared to be financially independent not someone who is. Big difference.
Reply With Quote
  #66  
Old 08-11-2016, 07:15 PM
stripes stripes is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Posts: 2,838
stripes is on a distinguished road
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by FightingForFamily View Post
More amusingly, your ex was not financially responsible. At least you had the freedom to leave. Were you ordered to keep paying his bills so he could continue his irresponsible spending after you split? I mean, you supported his bad habits while you were together. So it's totally fair you should continue to subsidize his lifestyle since he was used to it and you were OK with it when you were together.

You said you didn't get a chunk of equalization to make up for your loss during the relationship. The reality is spousal support is the OPPOSITE of this. You would be forced to continue paying for his needs, not compensated for your losses.
The point of my example is that we all take economic hits if we marry the wrong people. Marriage is a risky business, moneywise. I don't pay spousal support because my ex has no case for spousal support, but I did take a hit during divorce. We make mistakes - it's better to own them than to perseverate on how unfair the system is. Marrying someone with drastically different financial capacities is like buying a house on a floodplain - when it eventually gets washed away, you may not be happy with the result, but you can't say it had nothing to do with your own choices.
Reply With Quote
  #67  
Old 08-12-2016, 09:43 AM
FightingForFamily FightingForFamily is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 994
FightingForFamily will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by arabian View Post
So your ex is being supported by primarily by her parents and you pay child support.

Presumably you are living with someone who subsidizes you? Perhaps the person you are living with receives CS or SS from an ex? or...... he/she is working and contributing jointly to your current living situation?

One big circle.
Hilariously my new partner is also a support PAYOR.

So as a couple despite having multiple children we get zero benefits in terms of subsidies, tax breaks, support, etc. All we do is pay and pay and pay.

We often joke that we should get her knocked up by someone successful so we could finally have enough income to have a house by receiving some CS back instead of always paying it out.

I wish it would be "one big circle" instead of us supporting two drains on society.
Reply With Quote
  #68  
Old 08-12-2016, 09:45 AM
Links17 Links17 is offline
Hand of Justice
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: In the Shadows
Posts: 3,166
Links17 is on a distinguished road
Default

@FightingForFamily

Look at this way if her parents are paying for her to stay home they are subsidizing a full-time parent for your kid so that isn't a bad thing.

However, you should seek to impute income to her based on her lifestyle. It is VERY common, I can send you caselaw for that.

You basically do a reverse analysis of her lifestyle
-Hosing: 1200
-Car: 500
-etc...

Then convert that into taxable income and you ask a judge to impute that income to her.
Reply With Quote
  #69  
Old 08-12-2016, 10:18 AM
arabian's Avatar
arabian arabian is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Western Canada
Posts: 10,598
arabian will become famous soon enough
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Links17 View Post
@FightingForFamily

Look at this way if her parents are paying for her to stay home they are subsidizing a full-time parent for your kid so that isn't a bad thing.

However, you should seek to impute income to her based on her lifestyle. It is VERY common, I can send you caselaw for that.

You basically do a reverse analysis of her lifestyle
-Hosing: 1200
-Car: 500
-etc...

Then convert that into taxable income and you ask a judge to impute that income to her.

I agree with Links17 - I too have seen this done (on cases posted on CanLii).
Reply With Quote
  #70  
Old 08-12-2016, 01:16 PM
FightingForFamily FightingForFamily is offline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2012
Location: Ottawa, ON
Posts: 994
FightingForFamily will become famous soon enough
Default

I mentioned earlier I finished paying my spousal support a few years ago, so imputing income at this point wouldn't change anything. I don't have shared custody - which was my choice at the time.

I don't object to paying child support but as my income has gone up over the years, I keep adjusting the CS higher and higher each year and it's getting kind of ridiculous that it's to the point that it represents so much of her income at this point. I really don't feel that increasing it is doing anything additional to support my child. It's just putting extra money into her pocket for herself at this point.

This year I asked if she would be willing to forego having her support increased if I chose to move and use the money to rent a bigger home so my son could have his own bedroom instead of sleeping on the floor or sharing a bedroom.

She completely refused. She's entitled to it, but it just shows where her priorities are.
Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Children's bennefits Wiser2008 Financial Issues 21 05-03-2019 06:21 AM
Spousal Support - Why It Matters Divorcemanagement Political Issues 83 11-28-2013 09:38 AM
Spousal Support ruling OB1 Divorce & Family Law 2 07-18-2008 05:48 PM
What Were They Thinking........ FL_Needs_To_Change Divorce & Family Law 6 05-25-2007 09:47 PM
The Concept: Standard of living gooddadgoingmad Divorce & Family Law 7 02-20-2006 09:59 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:07 PM.