Salary Question

[Newfie76]

*It's*



*we're*



*oneself*



*an*



*one's*



Agreed.

LOL Its a web forum...not a book. LOL

Ego is high with this one!!!!!!!!!! (my bad...fingure slipped) LOL

Ironic...Rob ford was known for many things...one of them was correcting others grammer....LOL Mine is checking ones ego...

 

[Rioe]

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".

The point at which the new couple signs the marriage document, they agree to look after each other until death, become one financial unit, etc.

I fully agree that nobody who goes into marriage understands the legal contract they are signing, and this needs to change.

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!!

Feminists want equality. They want women to have the same career opportunities as men, so they can make an equal wage and support themselves.

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

CS is meant to have each parent supporting the children in proportion to their incomes. The more income a parent makes, the more CS they pay. It's very straightforward. The problem is not with the CS system. The problem is that some parents who receive CS are lazy. This is not a gendered problem.

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.

That sounds like an individual issue with the woman you married, not a problem with feminism, society, or the CS system in general.

Your point assumes men have some control over what the wife within a marriage. So, if man meets working woman....falls in love....marry...woman quits job because she does not like it, but does not find replacement job...The man has some say in this? Really? One can voice their opinion...one can not accept it..but one can not FORCE another to work. A wife is not a child nor a dependent. We are not in the 1920s.....

If you didn't like the fact that your wife quit her job and wasn't working, you could have separated from her then, before it became tacit approval. You can't control your wife, no, but you can control whether you stay married to her or not.

I don't know much about your situation, but from what you have described, I don't see the CS system itself as the problem. Your problem is that you don't have a 50-50 access arrangement, so you are not using the offset system, and you don't have an income imputed to your ex of what she could be making if she was properly employed. If you had those things in place, your CS would be less and I bet you would feel far less bitter.

And I do agree that while it sucks to have the type of ex who abuses the CS system, it's not happening because of feminism. Feminism is actively working against that sort of thing.

 

[zanman]

Well said Rio and Arabian

I agree

 

[tdog]

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.

My ex makes 3 x the salary I do. When she had both my daughters for the usual 61% of the time, I paid child support. That ensured that they stayed in the same house and kept going to the same school.

I rented a small 2 bedroom basement apartment for the 39% of the time they were with me. No internet, no cable, no AC. The children's lifestyle was drastically different from one household to the other.

I realise the importance of child support, really I do, now that 1 has moved in with me I could certainly use it after almost 3 years of her living with me.

 

[rockscan]

There does need to be some action regarding "parity" in certain situations. I would like to point out that my partner makes half what his ex makes. He pays full table support. Therefore her "income" with cs is over 100g while his is less than half that. She continues to overspend, live in an expensive house she cant afford and tell the kids they cant have expensive things because she has no money and dad wont pay for it. She even goes so far as to demand he pay for school dance tickets or school supplies (he says no). Shes currently being petty over a $10 fee for a form. He was the stay at home parent and agreed to her having custody. If he had fought for 50/50 then there would have been cs paid to him and thus equality between the houses. There are a few reasons why he didnt fight for it and he accepts his lot at having to pay thousands per year to her. His biggest problem is that she spouts her own truth about their financial situation like "you should have saved money to cover child support during unemployment" and "our children deserve two parents who pay for them". Last time I checked there wasnt a rule in the FCSG that every kid deserves to live in a six figure household, wearing designer clothes, not having to work and having mom and dad pay 80 grand for university. THOSE are the situations that are wrong and even if they had been together they would have been in serious debt because mom has never found an expense she can say no to if the kids want it.

As for high ss amounts, you need to remember you didnt just wake up one day with a stay at home wife with no skills. Unless you had poor legal advice or didnt speak up then your ex was able to argue successfully they deserved it.