Enough already

Status
Not open for further replies.
littleman said:
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.
Click to expand...

That's what SEVERENCE is for. A specified amount for a specified period of time based on the length of service (usually)

I have a better idea !

Why don't we just make divorce illegal and when we want to shtupp someone else we just cut off the offending existing spouse's head!
 
OMG punked you think severance carries on forever. So you think that 5k a month for 10 years is severance?? Really? Where does self respect come into play?

I have another post you made which is below and I really think you are out to get what ever you can financially from who ever - seriously men were put on this earth to provide? With that way of thinking women were put here to spread their legs and be baby factories but they were never given the right to have money- that is not their job according to you- men provide women procreate.

Originally Posted by punked
Originally Posted by shellshocked22

Basically, I think all women are a little (lot) nutty so the next one will likely not be much better lol.




I really don't think he was kidding.

As all men are self-centred, egotistical, single-minded sex maniacs who only think of their own gratification and needs.

Man was put on this earth to provide - and now they think they deserve thanks for their efforts - hahahahaha - for those that acutally make the effort.

So - shut up shellshocked and get a life - and if you really worked your balls off - then you wouldn't be in the mess your in!
 
LostFather said:
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.
Click to expand...

Who said I was talking about women? Men can be stay at home parents too.

I agree that ex's should be independent. But sometimes that can take a bit of time. Do you really expect someone who sacrificed their career for the family unit to run out and work at Timmies for the rest of their lives? And why, as a human being, would you want to put someone in that position? I see nothing wrong with providing some help to get started. Would you prefer they go on Welfare and have tax payers pay for their education and low-income housing? If you marry someone you have a responsibility to them. If the marriage ends that doesn't mean you should kick them to the curb and leave them with nothing. I'm not talking about someone who sat at home with an MBA and then claims they can't find work. And I'm not saying SS should be permanent. But a little bit of a boost to help someone become independent hardly seems unreasonable.

Let's also teach our children that it's important to treat others with a little respect.
 
Last edited:
littleman said:
Originally Posted by punked

As all men are self-centred, egotistical, single-minded sex maniacs who only think of their own gratification and needs.

Man was put on this earth to provide - and now they think they deserve thanks for their efforts - hahahahaha - for those that acutally make the effort.

So - shut up shellshocked and get a life - and if you really worked your balls off - then you wouldn't be in the mess your in!
Click to expand...

Wow.

Wow. I'm almost speechless. That's the smelliest piece of bullshit I think I've ever read. And there is some serious woman-bashing bullshit on this site but....Wow. Angry much?

Just for the record - my partner is the exact opposite of that description. Oh, and a man.
 
Hey CSAngel - this was in another post - maybe read the whole thread ....




Originally Posted by shellshocked22

Basically, I think all women are a little (lot) nutty so the next one will likely not be much better lol.



My response to this ridiculous statement was an equally ridiculous statement: by: Punked
Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines
i really hope you were kidding about that remark.



I really don't think he was kidding.

As all men are self-centred, egotistical, single-minded sex maniacs who only think of their own gratification and needs.

Man was put on this earth to provide - and now they think they deserve thanks for their efforts - hahahahaha - for those that acutally make the effort. ;):D

So - shut up shellshocked and get a life - and if you really worked your balls off - then you wouldn't be in the mess your in!
 
punked said:
Hey CSAngel - this was in another post - maybe read the whole thread ....




Originally Posted by shellshocked22

Basically, I think all women are a little (lot) nutty so the next one will likely not be much better lol.



My response to this ridiculous statement was an equally ridiculous statement: by: Punked
Originally Posted by standing on the sidelines
i really hope you were kidding about that remark.



I really don't think he was kidding.

As all men are self-centred, egotistical, single-minded sex maniacs who only think of their own gratification and needs.

Man was put on this earth to provide - and now they think they deserve thanks for their efforts - hahahahaha - for those that acutally make the effort. ;):D

So - shut up shellshocked and get a life - and if you really worked your balls off - then you wouldn't be in the mess your in!
Click to expand...

Oh, I'm aware it was in another thread - doesn't really matter where it was posted. It's still smelly.
 
Easy to say if you are salaried employee. Not so easy when self employed, aged 58, with both financial and health issues. Gets expensive. Don't have extended medical benefits or EI (not eligible) either.

As this thread is all about "entitlement", I would add that nothing has prevented my ex from getting life insurance on my life. She is quite entitled to buy the insurance.
 
I read these posts and a few are reasonable - Go BillM, I couldn't have said it better..... except if I understand the sliding decreasing support. As I read they look at it as a lump sum and they divide amongst the years of entitlement (if there is entitlement - or it adds to Zero) so if one thinks decreasing is the way to go then they should be ready to pay more up front to balance the equation!!

To littleman and others.... a few state every case is unique - that is the key. Support is based on a principle "what would the payor contribute to thier family if still married? A person who makes a million a year would have put more than $379 into the pot and a child did not get divorced so why should they have to learn to live any other way to meet the standard of another?"

SS - rant all you want but marriage is a financial union with support being a sliding scale in terms of the longer and more entrenched the circumstance of the marriage the longer and the greater the support based on the available incomes. Nothing more, nothing less.

So oncce upon a time......

Littleman make a comment here. - A person who worked darn hard, a person who without remorse brought in 80% of the income during the marriage, a person who gave everything to the union - is this going to change after 25 years? Ok if you know me here, what comes next..... not one indicated even remotely.....

What if this same person who gave it all, who cried the day of acceptance that it was most likely thier last day and hasn't been able to work for the last 3, 5, 8, years (does it matter 1 or 10?) with the prospect of future self support is basically nil. So after 25 years would this person be entitled to anything when all they get is a disability pension that would be from CPP. Do the math if you understand how much a person who during the marriage missed out in nearly 15 years of paying into the cpp program actually gets every month.

Would this person be - Entitled? Oh and just in case the 65 rule...... what does it mean when it adds up to 75?

Oh and what if it was the joint decision for one spouse to stay home and take care of the house, to have dinner ready at 6:00pm everynight, kids or no kids. But now at 62 years old following a 40 year marriage and one day the supper ready at 6:30 as usual was never to be consumed. No note, no warning. Signs? Does it matter why? What matters is the spouse that never came home, just decided that the marriage was over. It only takes one, there is no one to, as one post had so delicately put it, to go running back (or was in crawling? pleading? debasing might be a good word) to go crawling back to....... nothing. To polish this off, that missing spouse continued to star in those Hollywood blockbusters that fill the movie theaters worldwide............... Entitlement? Or is it just that McDonald's has a new 62 year old hamberger flipper?

No I am not bitter, I am not a gouger, I understand she just had enough - she basically needed to do this for her. No I do not play up the disability thing - most days I am glad to wake up but some days....... and no the property settlement won't be enough. Expectations - I hope to get some really little place I can call home - someplace safe where I can have a chance at enjoying what life I do have. I think I am entitled to this.
 
I'm a bit late in the thread and it's already devolved into trolling but just wanted to add my two cents. When I first joined this forum there was a post that made a good point about SS, especially with respect to stay at home moms. I'm not talking a mom who chose to stay home for 25 to life, but mom's who stay home for 3-4 years until the kids are in school.

When the family, as a couple, made this decision, they already paid for the lost income. Their family had reduced income, they couldn't buy nice things, go on vacations. This decision already affected the standard of living of BOTH parties. They shared in the costs of the lost income at that time.

Why should one person have to pay for it all a SECOND time?

I can see in some circumstances where a person is out of the work force for life essentially and it has a significant impact on their earning potential, lost pension, etc. But wait... even in those situations they are still entitled to half of the pension that WAS accumulated by the working partner.

All I know is that when the dust settled after settling on finances, paying CS and SS that my spouse has ended up with more disposable income than she ever had when she WAS working, even more than we had while she was staying at home and I was working. She stayed home for 3 years and she is walking away with almost 100k, tax free, all told. Her salary before children was 34k but taxable.

Oh yes, and she doesn't have to do anything or go to work anymore, to make more money than she ever did in her life.
 
My experience is that when a parent feels entitled to $$$$ this spills over on to the kids. And at the end of the day what does this teach them? I know that my step kids will have a very difficult time on their own. They have had everything handed to them. And mom does this because she currently CAN. With her income, her husbands income and child support - there is a large pool of money to take fromm! Now, step dad is contemplating leaving, mom loses in trial, she is tighening the reins and the kids are FREAKING. How dare she not give them money for.......

We need to teach our kids that yes, they can have nice things. But that someone is working hard from them to have those things. And that these things will not always be there for them because one day they will have to go out into the real world...and when they go it is going to be one of their hardest life lessons. There was a study in the Star yesterday that most young people expect to earn $90,000 within a few years of graduating from post-secondary. How many people on this forum earn that much? Kids are disllusioned. And it is our fault as their parents. We have done them a disservice.

I want my kids to be happy. I want them to live in a nice house (doesn't need to be a big, expensive house). I want them to have clean clothes...hell even new clothes! I want them to be able to do activities and to go on school trips. I also want them to get a job (when they are old enough to), pay for a portion of their schooling, buy their own car, pay their own cell phone. Because they will be better PEOPLE because of it. I think that we forget that we are raising kids that will one day be ADULTS.
My kids will respect what they have. They will APPRECIATE what they have.

For those of us on here that really understand this...we must lock arms and support one another and not get taken in by the entitled ones. Because really...at the end of the day we all know that it isn't money, the big house, the nanny, nice cars, etc. It's how we choose to live each day. By appreciating the little things. Knowing that we can lay our head on our pillow at night knowing that we are good people defined by love, not by money.
 
BeenThereTwice said:
Easy to say if you are salaried employee. Not so easy when self employed, aged 58, with both financial and health issues. Gets expensive. Don't have extended medical benefits or EI (not eligible) either.

As this thread is all about "entitlement", I would add that nothing has prevented my ex from getting life insurance on my life. She is quite entitled to buy the insurance.
Click to expand...

Well you should, if possible, have money in place to take care of your kids in the case of your death, that's seem like a point that is hard to argue against.

At your age I would assume that your kids don't need much more from you financially, so your assets perhaps would cover that, otherwise, a small amount of life insurance that represents the remaining CS payments seems like a reasonable goal.
 
billm said:
you should .... have money in place to take care of your kids in the case of your death
Click to expand...

I have been working hard enough to take care of the "now" that the future is a bit harder to fathom. Nice idea though. Wish I lived in your world.

As I said before.. the EX could also take this action. Unless you are suggesting that she has no responsibility to do so.
 
Actually BillM let me ask you...

Actually BillM let me ask you...

BeenThereTwice said:
... the EX could also take this action. Unless you are suggesting that she has no responsibility to do so.
Click to expand...

You've been pretty clear about what you think the PAYORS (read father's) obligations and responsibilities are. OK.. I can accept much of that. But how about a few words about the recipients (read mothers) responsibilities.. say ina case where there are no diapers to change (kids 10, 15).. or kids to run to/from school, and when mother and father have shared custody 50/50 in same home.
 
BeenThereTwice said:
You've been pretty clear about what you think the PAYORS (read father's) obligations and responsibilities are. OK.. I can accept much of that. But how about a few words about the recipients (read mothers) responsibilities.. say ina case where there are no diapers to change (kids 10, 15).. or kids to run to/from school, and when mother and father have shared custody 50/50 in same home.
Click to expand...

I assume you are talking about the mother working or not?

They should work full time - simple.

If they don't and have no other source of living, then they are living off of their kids CS, which is not right. Working would improve their standard of living - this should be enough of an incentive.

If they do have another source of living, that is not line 150 income, then they should have income imputed.

As for SS, it should be based on what happened in the marriage and the time limited sharing of income if necessary - but based on both working full time.

Simple enough.

The trick is when she does not work, and how to 'punish' (ie give incentive for her to do work) without causing hardship on the kids by reducing CS via an imputed income that does not exist.
 
Last edited:
I think what we are dealing with here is....

I think what we are dealing with here is....

no different from when we were kids, and we get assigned to a team to do some school project. We all had that situation where one team member simply did NOT pull their weight, and preferred to lounge along, knowing that the other team members would get the project done, and the slacker would get the same mark anyway.

There will always be people like that.. and the main regret that I have.. is that I choose to marry one. Where WAS my head at.

BillM you are getting on my case a bit heer for not doing everything that you think I should do, or have done. Any I'm a little like you as well, as I'm always beating myself uip about something "more" that I could.. or should do.

But at the same time.. I am PISSED that the OTHER team member wants to lounge along. IMHO she has a responsibility !! to do more.. under the law. Federal Divorce Act says (something to the effect of) each parent is obligated to earn an income to the best of their ability. But if the ex doesn't do this.. the other team member has an obligation to do it.

It isn't balanced.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top