Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What I found to be disturbing was the fact that she openly discussed that she would not remarry for as long as she received alimony, because she did not want to lose that income, whether or not she needed it. If it was awarded based on need, then that is a show of poor character. Furthermore, in the time that she has received alimony she has not sought after gainful employment or revisited the idea of college. Therefore, it is reasonable to believe that she feels no need to be employed now, or in the future, because she will be receiving money from her ex for as long as she "needs" it. Being willfully unemployed for the sake of qualifying for a benefit, is another question of ethics.
.
She said that she had no plans on getting married because she would lose alimony, doesn't mean she has an offer on the table.
I have no vested interest, never been divorced, and I DO think that sometimes one side gets treated unfairly (usually the guy).
You can't judge though, you don't know everything and it's the JUDGE who made the decision.
__________________ ____________________________________________
My posts as a Mod will always be in red.
Be sure to review Terms of Service: TOS
And check this out: FAQ
Moderator: Relationships Forum / Hawaii Forum / Dogs / Pets / Current Events
But why would a 30 year old able-bodied woman have a tough time finding a minimum wage job? She doesn't have a particular set of skills, or looking for a job with certain requirements, so there should be plentiful opportunities for employment. We're talking waitressing, hostess, pizza delivery or something of that nature.
But I digress. If in the scenario where the province of Ontario ran out of minimum wage jobs, I would still not question his ethics, because she is not living solely off his income. She has a place to stay, with a boyfriend who provides for her. I understand this is besides the business of the courts, as that would mean nothing to them, but it is important to note in the question of morality. She wouldn't be on the streets with nothing but rain water as substances if she stop receiving that alimony.
Does Canada have unemployment compensation and welfare?
We have people who will intentionally not look for work until their unemployment benefits run out, people who are able bodied to work but would rather receive government handouts, people who will receive disability when they are perfectly able to work. We have a court system that will plea bargain and make deals incarcerating the innocent or letting the guilty go free knowing full well the guilt or innocence. These are also unethical behaviors. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish focusing on alimony.
Does Canada have unemployment compensation and welfare?
We have people who will intentionally not look for work until their unemployment benefits run out, people who are able bodied to work but would rather receive government handouts, people who will receive disability when they are perfectly able to work. We have a court system that will plea bargain and make deals incarcerating the innocent or letting the guilty go free knowing full well the guilt or innocence. These are also unethical behaviors. I'm not sure what you are trying to accomplish focusing on alimony.
But I never said alimony is the only source of unethical behaviour?
I mean, if you want to get into a discussion about the welfare state then send me a PM. I would happily do so, I love debating these types of things. I like having meaningful discussion. This is something that I felt would be interesting to hear different POV's and experiences. There are no ulterior motives lol. I'm not looking to "accomplish" something. This is how discussions run off course -- when people think there is some sort of agenda. The whole point of the thread was to see how people felt, not to vilify a certain law, person or group of people
But to answer your question: Yes, we do. Canada has a very generous social program.
I tend to think alimony is a crock of crap EXCEPT for the following:
1. One spouse sacrificing career or education for the sake of another's
2. One spouse sacrificing career or education for the sake of staying home and raising the children
3. One spouse sacrificing career or education to run a home or social calendar as befitting what both spouses agreed to
Note I did not specify gender.
Also, FTR, I, personally, would have major issues being any kind of housewife, without any work of my own, and I would not want to depend on a man for room and board or sacrifice my earning potential. Even if I only earned a mere fraction of what he earned, I would still want something, and some money, of my own.
If, by some off-chance I wound up with a bazillionaire, and we agreed to #3, I'd rather just sign a pre-nup guaranteeing me a certain sum should he cheat, beat, or abandon, so that it's one check and it's over with and I don't have to deal with him in any kind of ongoing arrangement. But that's far-fetched and entirely hypothetical.
I tend to think alimony is a crock of crap EXCEPT for the following:
1. One spouse sacrificing career or education for the sake of another's
2. One spouse sacrificing career or education for the sake of staying home and raising the children
3. One spouse sacrificing career or education to run a home or social calendar as befitting what both spouses agreed to
Note I did not specify gender.
Also, FTR, I, personally, would have major issues being any kind of housewife, without any work of my own, and I would not want to depend on a man for room and board or sacrifice my earning potential. Even if I only earned a mere fraction of what he earned, I would still want something, and some money, of my own.
If, by some off-chance I wound up with a bazillionaire, and we agreed to #3, I'd rather just sign a pre-nup guaranteeing me a certain sum should he cheat, beat, or abandon, so that it's one check and it's over with and I don't have to deal with him in any kind of ongoing arrangement. But that's far-fetched and entirely hypothetical.
I never married but if I ever became rich, I would only marry if that woman was truly in love with me BEFORE I became rich!
I never married but if I ever became rich, I would only marry if that woman was truly in love with me BEFORE I became rich!
Good luck proving THAT!
Everything in life is a crapshoot. There is no love that is "truly" more than another love. And believe it or not, love is only a piece of a marriage/relationship. Everyone does marriage different and there is no ONE PERFECT WAY to do it.
I tend to think alimony is a crock of crap EXCEPT for the following:
1. One spouse sacrificing career or education for the sake of another's
2. One spouse sacrificing career or education for the sake of staying home and raising the children
3. One spouse sacrificing career or education to run a home or social calendar as befitting what both spouses agreed to
Note I did not specify gender.
Also, FTR, I, personally, would have major issues being any kind of housewife, without any work of my own, and I would not want to depend on a man for room and board or sacrifice my earning potential. Even if I only earned a mere fraction of what he earned, I would still want something, and some money, of my own.
If, by some off-chance I wound up with a bazillionaire, and we agreed to #3, I'd rather just sign a pre-nup guaranteeing me a certain sum should he cheat, beat, or abandon, so that it's one check and it's over with and I don't have to deal with him in any kind of ongoing arrangement. But that's far-fetched and entirely hypothetical.
I have maintained that alimony is an outdated concept that has outlived its usefulness.
With the number 3 assumption, the divorced spouse is entitled to an equitable share of the assets. If one amasses a fortune while married with the other running the house. In the event of a divorce they get a share of what was accumulated. When they awarded party receives their share, they are free to do whatever they want. There should be no additional support.
I have maintained that alimony is an outdated concept that has outlived its usefulness.
Alimony as it use to be because those type marriages are far and few between but I still see a number of SAHM (at least while the kids are young) as well I see many situations where mom is going part time, sacrificing any pay raises, promotions or other career opportunities to spend more time with the kids or just be available for the situations that kids create while dad continues advancing his career.
Saying that alimony or temporary spousal support, as it is today, is outdated is to say SAHMs or temporary or part time moms (or dads) is outdated. I know if I were in that situation and ended up divorced I would think a few years of financial help so I could get back up to par in my career
would be fair. Same if it were my husband that put his career on hold for the sake of the family while my career continued to advance.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
