Enough already

Status
Not open for further replies.
littleman said:
Mediocrity??? I dont think so!!!! It is called reality. If your ex needs 5000$ a month to support a child you got hosed. What is your ex going to do if God forbids you die? who is going to pay that 5k a month you so generously give? thats right me cause your ex doesnt have any life skills let alone job skills to be self sufficient.
Click to expand...

I believe that she (oh pardon her child) who needs 5k a month, not her ex... did I miss something ?
 
punked said:
And - yes - I can tell you - that there are cases where a child needs over $1,000.00 per month to live.

And - yes - I think that he is talking about cs - not ss - if I am wrong - please correct me.
Click to expand...

and for that statement I was talking about CS but I was also stating that it should table amount and NOTHING more...you needed to go back a sentence. My original rant is about SS and some people believing they are entitled.

So you mean to tell me punked that when you marry and divorce that one spouse is entitled to pay for the other for the rest of their life.

btw I am a woman not a man..I have sole custody of my child. I DO NOT get SS and table amount CS
 
Last edited:
littleman said:
and for that statement I was talking about CS but I was also stating that it should table amount and NOTHING more...you needed to go back a sentence. My original rant is about SS and some people believing they are entitled.

So you mean to tell me punked that when you marry and divorce that one spouse is entitled to pay for the other for the rest of their life.
Click to expand...

And I have only ever been referring to child support, and the fact that YOU determined, on your own, what standards every one else should live by :p

I am totally on the fence about SS! I admit that in some cases is seems justified, and in others it's a complete "system-working" catastrophe.

BUT - and here is the big BUTT talkin' - you have to take every case on its' own merit. Courts have a hard time doing it. Hence the utter inconsistency!
 
Littleman: SS is like welfare?? You have tunnel vision. Your opinion is not realistic nor is it based on the LAW. My ex ripped me off for tens of thousands of dollars. This greatly affected my life and my son's. He is NOT pounding any pavement I can assure you. He spends money like water and rips ppl off (currently the new wife). She sold her house and w/the profits, "they" bought another home. He works. When he feels like it, and spends other people's money. Hers, her parents (they've loaned him money - (money they will never ever see returned). It was determined in Court, at Trial, by a JUDGE - based on evidence that I had been left in financial hardship as the result of his willful actions. Left financially burdened.. At a "clear disadvantage" - so YES I DO deserve SS, and a hell of a lot more than what was awarded. It will be years, if EVER that I can properly recover from the ruin he caused. He even blew our son's RESP. A total maggot. A mercedes benz driving, wild spending, sociopath. Hell ya - I deserve SS. And so do many many others. It's up to a Judge to decide, not you.
 
While I do not agree with everything littleman has said, I DO agree with this last post (actually couple of posts ago now). What would the CP do if this $5K/month support simply stops as at result of payor death. As far as I can tell, the laws are all written that both CS and SS shall be paid in an amount determined by payor income.. and it's safe to say that that income will stop at death. Though the courts will sometimes order one or both parents to have life insurance to deal with this, there is, to my knowledge, NO requirement to pay support after death, even if the estate can afford it.

So.. and here is where I agree with littleman, the recipient CP should be responsible to earn his/her own income, if for no other reason than to enure that the child will have cared for after payor death. And BTW.. it's not only the "death" life event hat can trigger this. The same would be true if the payor had a stroke, a serious car accident, or got downsized out of a job.

In my own case, I have shared custody (in same home) and I pay CS, and pay all home expenses and most child expenses, AND deliver half of all child care. (kids 10 and 15). Been these way for 5 years. My ex has very limited expenses for the kids, and none for the home. In total there are 3 adults in the house (her sistyer as well) all capable to take care of the kids (who in any event are quite capable and independant themselves. So the setting SHOULD enable the ex to get re-educated and get a job.. but she does NEITHER. She is 45, and i am 58, and I can see the day coming where I am no longer able to cover expenses as I have been. And unfortnately, when that day comes, the ex will not be equipped or ready to take over.

I know that my ex EXPECTS to receive support for life, in the form of CS and free housing (as now) or in the form of indefinate CS and SS if in separet housing. She has told me so. She EXPECTS to not work. She feels ENTITLED to "lifetime support".

And.. in case anyone thinks we had a traditional marriage, where she was a stay at home mom when the kids were younger, we were NOT. She worked the entire time of our marriage, with the exception of 12 months maternity leave at the birth of each child. We have day care from a young age, and my youngest spent 18 months with my ex and I in the office where we both worked. Then.. about 7 years ago.. she just decided.. unilaterally, that she was done working.. forever. I didn't agree.. and that lead in 2006 to our separation.

BOTH parents are supposedly REQUIRED to act in the best interests of their children. And I simply can't see ANY arguement that would justify my ex NOT seeking employment as being in the kids best interests. If anything, it's a bad influence on the kids to see a parent litterally doing nothing.
 
there is no amount of BS in this world that will EVER convince me that a child needs an absorbant amount of cash to survive in a month. if so time to get a reality check and move them to an apartment and out of the 4000 square foot home, drop the designer threads and see the way the real world lives.
no ex spouse needs to be carried through life by their ex. when does this ever stop. He is paying for her and he is paying for the kids on top but he is living at his parents cause HE cant afford to live. (just an example).

there is nothing in this world that will convince me that anyone should be qualified for SS. No one ever looks at what if the payor dies, SS cut off immediately and the receipient has to get a job. Why in the world does something tragic have to happen for people to be self sufficient. Back to my original statement that this has become world of entitlement and it needs to stop.
 
hadenough said:
Littleman: SS is like welfare?? You have tunnel vision. Your opinion is not realistic nor is it based on the LAW. My ex ripped me off for tens of thousands of dollars. This greatly affected my life and my son's. He is NOT pounding any pavement I can assure you. He spends money like water and rips ppl off (currently the new wife). She sold her house and w/the profits, "they" bought another home. He works. When he feels like it, and spends other people's money. Hers, her parents (they've loaned him money - (money they will never ever see returned). It was determined in Court, at Trial, by a JUDGE - based on evidence that I had been left in financial hardship as the result of his willful actions. Left financially burdened.. At a "clear disadvantage" - so YES I DO deserve SS, and a hell of a lot more than what was awarded. It will be years, if EVER that I can properly recover from the ruin he caused. He even blew our son's RESP. A total maggot. A mercedes benz driving, wild spending, sociopath. Hell ya - I deserve SS. And so do many many others. It's up to a Judge to decide, not you.
Click to expand...

HERE HERE!

Everyone has their own set of circumstances.

The unfortunate part is that the only tool the court system has to punish/reward with is MONEY.

Let's look at it this way .......

If the Judge had it within his means to cut off his balls and turn him into a eunich and serve me for the rest of his life .... feeding me those bon bons I apparently sit there and eat all day while the kids are in school .... then perhaps I wouldn't think that SS was the be-all and end-all of conclusions to a shitty marriage that had a shitty outcome. ???

Sorry .... dreaming there. Money is the only tool the courts can use. :(
 
hadenough said:
Littleman: SS is like welfare?? You have tunnel vision. Your opinion is not realistic nor is it based on the LAW. My ex ripped me off for tens of thousands of dollars. This greatly affected my life and my son's. He is NOT pounding any pavement I can assure you. He spends money like water and rips ppl off (currently the new wife). She sold her house and w/the profits, "they" bought another home. He works. When he feels like it, and spends other people's money. Hers, her parents (they've loaned him money - (money they will never ever see returned). It was determined in Court, at Trial, by a JUDGE - based on evidence that I had been left in financial hardship as the result of his willful actions. Left financially burdened.. At a "clear disadvantage" - so YES I DO deserve SS, and a hell of a lot more than what was awarded. It will be years, if EVER that I can properly recover from the ruin he caused. He even blew our son's RESP. A total maggot. A mercedes benz driving, wild spending, sociopath. Hell ya - I deserve SS. And so do many many others. It's up to a Judge to decide, not you.
Click to expand...

that means he is a dead beat and you got screwed but sadly doesnt mean you are entitled. and yes I thik SS is similar to welfare. You get money for not going to work correct? Im thinking you are missing the mark. I empathize with you however I still dont think you are entitled. He is her problem now ad be thankful not vengeful- vengeance comes out with children - they can feel it
all you have to think is he is putting her in debt so far she cant see daylight but be thankful you can
 
littleman said:
Im sorry but above argument doesnt hold water with me. I am a parent, I was married and we had a marital home...all the married stuff. I never once considered asking for SS because I believe that parents have an obligation to their children to show that there is no shame in working to obtain what you want in life. To me accepting SS is living off someone elses dime and equal to being on welfare. SS is never appropriate. The other person is out there pounding the pavement while the one collecting is at home on couch eating bonbons and the kids are off to school. I can see the equality there for sure.
Click to expand...


Agreed - however, if one parent gave up their career and/or education to stay at home and raise the children then SS may be necessary for a while. I don't agree it should be indefinite but you can not seriously expect someone to leave a marriage with no education or skills and find a job to support themselves and their children right away.

When you are married you are a unit. You support each other. Just because one person works and the other stays home, does not make the money coming into the household the possession of the employed. That's an archaic outlook. If that marriage breaks down, the one who stayed home should not be left with nothing. They contributed as well. They should be given the opportunity to get on their feet and support themselves.

Unfortunately, there are way too many people who feel they should never have to look after themselves.
 
It seems pretty simple to me.

During marriage, the child lives a lifestyle according to the income of the parents. After divorce this should continue - CS according to income - that's what the tables are for. If you don't make much, little CS, if you make a lot, a lot of CS. The fact that the CP benefits directly from a lot of CS can't be helped.

Spousal support is very valid in the case where one person, in the financial arrangement of marriage, sacrifices their earning potential while the other does not - a decision made by both. After divorce, SS should be granted, decreasing over time to compensate that person for that financial sacrifice. It SHOULD NOT depend on what happens after the marriage (ie if they work or not, or try to improve their job status), but rather what happened during the marriage - compensatory SS. Also in some cases (a long term marriage with a stay at home parent), there is no recovery from loss of career - in that case permanent SS is valid as there is permanent damage.

Unlike CS, SS needs to be looked at on a case by case basis.

Also as for the point of reducing support to make the recipients prepared for the death of the payor - kind of a silly argument. Any normal parent should have life insurance in place to take care of their children in the event of their death.
 
I agree billm that a parent should have insurance for their children.

9/10 the person that stays with marital home is the wife and 9/10 she gets SS. Tell me then why does SHE get both?

he has paid for the house and now has to continue paying her to stay in the house HE paid for and now paying for a second time around
 
Question for Littleman ..... without looking back at all your previous posts to figure it out

Are you a new girlfriend referring to her ss/cs paying boyfriend?

Or, are you a woman paying her ex husband ss?
 
Im neither......so much for your assumption. I am a mother of a 17 year old bottomless eating machine and I do not get spousal support nor would I want to. I am a very proud woman that can say even though the ex financially screwed me out of my home I dont need him to support me. He has a financial obligation to our child and the money ends there. (for the record our child receives all CS I do not) BTW punked why would I have to look back when this is reality. Im not the sour ex wife nor am I the financial sour gf.
 
littleman said:
Im neither......so much for your assumption. I am a mother of a 17 year old bottomless eating machine and I do not get spousal support nor would I want to. I am a very proud woman that can say even though the ex financially screwed me out of my home I dont need him to support me. He has a financial obligation to our child and the money ends there. (for the record our child receives all CS I do not) BTW punked why would I have to look back when this is reality. Im not the sour ex wife nor am I the financial sour gf.
Click to expand...

Your passion about this subject means there is a thorn in your side. I wonder what it is?

If marriage was in actuality a business, don't you think that if two equal people start out together, one develops a career, while the other maintains the home and primarily raises the kids, that at the end of that relationship that the one that has very little earning potential should not be compensated (as was during the marriage) financially until their career is reestablished?

However also in my view:
If they didn't have kids - no SS.
If they both worked full time - no SS.
If you make less than the other - no SS. (ie don't have to compensate for actual career damage if you make less than the person whose career was damaged as a result of the marriage).
SS should be time limited and not based on what happens AFTER the separation, unless earning potential was significantly and permanently damaged.
 
Im passionate about this because I feel alot of people and mostly men (and CSAngel) are being taken for a ride.
Im not the bitter ex wife nor am I the gf with spouse who has ex SS payments.

I read these comments from people or hear people saying they are entitled to SS. For what? You went into marriage with similar expectations - to live happily ever after. Didnt work out so doesnt mean one spouse lives to pay ever after.

Scenario for you. You are in marriage and one is stay at home parent. Sadly working parent in car accident and succombs to injuries and dies. Stay at home parent needs to find job on the ASAP to support Jack & Jill and his or herself. So what can I ask is the difference if there is divorce? Working parent removed from picture, but there is still CS coming why is there need for SS when in previous scenario you have no choice. Should be same in both scenarios.
 
CSAngel said:
Agreed - however, if one parent gave up their career and/or education to stay at home and raise the children then SS may be necessary for a while. I don't agree it should be indefinite but you can not seriously expect someone to leave a marriage with no education or skills and find a job to support themselves and their children right away.

When you are married you are a unit. You support each other. Just because one person works and the other stays home, does not make the money coming into the household the possession of the employed. That's an archaic outlook. If that marriage breaks down, the one who stayed home should not be left with nothing. They contributed as well. They should be given the opportunity to get on their feet and support themselves.

Unfortunately, there are way too many people who feel they should never have to look after themselves.
Click to expand...

Im sorry but blah, blah, blah...your rational may of worked back in the 60's & 70's. But now we have equality, equal rights. A woman is just as smart as a man. Especially when it comes to ss and cs entitlements along with working and navigating the family law system.

Go out and get a job! So children know that its not okay to leech of your ex for the rest of your life. The above statement about education and giving careers ect, in my opinion only sets the tone that woman are weak and not able to fend for themselves. Isn't that the exact oppose that woman have fought for for decades...independence and equality. So now after all this fighting it goes right out the window when you expect someone to pay/support you for the rest of your life and use the children as the pc term to justify it. Give me a frekin break.
 
littleman said:
...

Scenario for you. You are in marriage and one is stay at home parent. Sadly working parent in car accident and succombs to injuries and dies. Stay at home parent needs to find job on the ASAP to support Jack & Jill and his or herself. So what can I ask is the difference if there is divorce? Working parent removed from picture, but there is still CS coming why is there need for SS when in previous scenario you have no choice. Should be same in both scenarios.
Click to expand...

Okay, I assume you disagree with my scenario.

They should not be the same. The earnings of the dead one is 0. In divorce it is not 0. That is the difference. They are not dead, they are off financially unaffected by the marriage, but the other is - simple business concept.
 
business concept...one spouse got fired doesnt mean previous boss is to still support the fired one. when you are fired your paycheque stops and there is not Employment Insurance on this one.
 
littleman said:
Im neither......so much for your assumption. I am a mother of a 17 year old bottomless eating machine and I do not get spousal support nor would I want to. I am a very proud woman that can say even though the ex financially screwed me out of my home I dont need him to support me. He has a financial obligation to our child and the money ends there. (for the record our child receives all CS I do not) BTW punked why would I have to look back when this is reality. Im not the sour ex wife nor am I the financial sour gf.
Click to expand...

Good for you. Good for your child. I truly mean that.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top