Renegade
-
Posts
3,034 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Renegade
-
-
Beginning at the bottom of page 10: "To determine whether the parties have, in fact, been engaged in a joint family adventure, the particular circumstances of each relationship must be taken into account. ..." Read from there.
The key if you read on is that it depends upon each relationship. IOW, it is open to subjective interpretation on intent, there is no set of clear rules which indicates when a joint venture is entered into. I agree that in the ruling they do give some guidelies on how to construe intent. For example a joint venture situation may "occur where one party leaves the workforce for a period of time to raise children" but I don't see how the court can read into that my intent of whether I intend to hire my parner as a baby-sitter or if that act means I'm agreeing to make her my business partner.
Perhaps you should should be pointing out the bits that make you believe that they've moved to a presumption of joint venture. I still see no evidence of it in spite of looking, but in any case, the onus should not be on me to guess what you've seen. You are making the assertion. Show me.
I'm going to agree with you that the ruling itself doesn't state that the presumption is for joint venture, further the ruling goes out of its way to state that neither joint venture nor value received is the presumed arrangment, BUT, it also states that the arrangement is interpreted based upon each circumstance. That means as a person going into such an arrangement you have to assume that your relationship MAY BE INTERPRETED as a joint venture even if you did not intend it to be so because any one of a number of actions can trigger such an interpretation.
-
If anything, 'value survived' would reduce litigation (a LOT), not increase it... and honest-to-God, guys, I really don't see a presumption of joint venture.
Show me what you are seeing that says that.
From the judgement on page 50
Relationships of this nature are common in our life experience. For many domestic relationships, the couple’s venture may only sensibly be viewed as a joint one, making it highly artificial in theory and extremely difficult in practice to do a detailed accounting of the contributions made and benefits received on a feefor-services basis.
However it adds some caveats:
Of course, this is a relationship-specific issue; there can be no presumption one way or the other. However, the legal consequences of the breakdown of a domestic relationship should reflect realistically the way people live their lives. It should not impose on them the need to engage in an artificial balance sheet approach which does not reflect the true nature of their relationship.
So while the judgement indicates that there is no presumption of a joint venure, I don't see how it percribes that in a domestic relationship, which is not a joint-venture, how a cople should live their lives to show this. It used to be clearer, if property was in one person's name, only that person had claim to that property. IMO many couples in a common-law relationship have separate finances and would be more aligned with a "value received" basis. How does such a couple demonstrate this? I see no definitive way to do so other than a formal agreement between the couple.
In Vanasse/Seguin case what did the couple do to indicate that they were in a joint-venture situation rather than a "fee-for-service" arrangement?
-
If there's any chance that the question might arise, or might matter anyway, where's the problem in doing so? You wouldn't let a mechanic fix your car (and you wouldn't take on fixing someone elses) without a work order specifying what's to be done and what rate of compensation is to be used... It's pretty darned slap-happy to leaves omething so much more important to guess and whimsy.
There is no problem in doing so. With the current ruling the question pretty much now is always a possiblity. In your analogy, you are right that I wouldn't let a mechanic fix my car without some kind contract, but in this analogy, I can't even let my mechnically proficient friend touch my car without some kind of contract.
-
there is a presumption of joint ownership of wealth through a joint venture. first demands that evidence of 'joint venture' be established, and simple cohabitation doesn't do it. "Many" isn't "all".
I would ageee with you, but that is not how I interpret the ruling. What evidence is required to establish a joint venture? I believe that the ruling PRESUMES a joint venture, then the onus is on the parties to prove it is not a joint venture. In the Vanasse vs Seguin case, what evidence is there to establish a joint venture? Does bring up kids in a domestic arrangment imply a joint venture on the business side? Does that make my nanny my business partner?
And on this: " I believe that it is court rulings like this one which change society's opinion on what the obligations are of a cohabitation relationship rather than just being reflective of the current societal opinion." I'd say you have the cart before the horse- that the courts are simply reflecting what's going on in the real world, not leading it.
I have two problems. First, why should a court's ruling depend upon public opinion? If you look at the issue of Same-Sex marriage, should the court only decide that SSM is ok, once the public opinion has come around, or should they determine the decision based upon the fundamentals of the case? If a court depends upon public perceptions to make a ruling that leaves open the possiblity that court will rule one way, and that same court can rule a different way once society opinion changes. Why rely on precedents then?
My second problem is that in many cases public opinion follows the court decision. (ie the SCC says it is ok, so it must be ok). The answer is neither one side not the other. It is a chicken and egg story, people's change somewhat with time, even when there isn't concensus, a court decision will legitimize a position, which will cause further opinion to swing toward that position.
------------------------
How does one enter a co-habitation domestic relationship where it is clear that both parties agree that they are not joint-venture financial partners? It would seem to me that the only way is by putting a pre-cohabitation agreement in place, and even then it is subject to challenge.
-
You are right that it is not like marriage, YET, however each ruling moves it closer to equivalent recognition. At this point one common-law spouse can claim spousal support from the other, and they can now claim a share of property which is in the other's name. In Ontario, they can even claim possession to the "family home" even if the home was paid for and owned by the other.
While there may not be a presumption of equal sharing, there is a presumption of joint ownership of wealth through a joint venture. Just because "many domestic relationships are more realistically viewed as a joint venture" doesn't mean that the couple themselves unanimously have agreed that their domestic relationship is a joint venture. It wasn't long ago that co-habitation relationships were viewed by society as simply a convenient sexual relationship, rather than a financial one. I believe that it is court rulings like this one which change society's opinion on what the obligations are of a cohabitation relationship rather than just being reflective of the current societal opinion.
-
Common law couples deserve fair shares when separating, top court rulesThe Supreme Court of Canada made it easier today for common law couples who split up to claim a fair share of property or assets they played a substantial role in building.Ruling unanimously on two cases that involved estranged common law couples, the Court emphasized that when one partner has contributed substantially to a business, property or the success of the other’s career, they should gain a benefit that properly reflects their contribution.
The Court stressed the importance of adopting a flexible approach when it comes to assessing the relative role of each partner and working out a dollar amount that reflects those roles.
“In my view, where both parties have worked together for the common good, with each making extensive, but different, contributions to the welfare of the other and, as a result, have accumulated assets, the money remedy for unjust enrichment should reflect that reality,” Mr. Justice Thomas Cromwell wrote for the majority.
“The money remedy in those circumstances should not be based on a minute totting up of the give and take of daily domestic life, but rather should treat the claimant as a co-venturer, not as the hired help,” he said.
The Complete SCC judgement is available here
On the surface this ruling seems fair and just, however there are a couple of things which bother me:
-
The spouses enter into a financial joint-venture even though that has not been explicity agreed to by both parties. What it does is decide after-the-fact that two individuals are business partners.
-
It changes the rules on existing common-law relationships. If couples have entered into relationships based upon previous rules and precedents (ie that they by default are not in a joint financial venture) this now forces them into such a financial arrangement.
-
This now makes common-law arrangments pretty similar to formal marriage. There is no legal arrangment in which two individuals can simply co-reside but keep the rest of their lives separate. What would constitue "unjust enrichment" is going to be subject to intrepretation. It is going to make pre-cohabitation agreements just as important as prenuptual agreements.
-
-
People are already making more land all around the world. Filling in the coasts along seas and oceans to expand cities is a practice that has been going on for a long time. Furthermore, there are vast tracts of land that are not in use. Third, we can build vertically (both up and down) many times more than we have been doing so far.
Again, what this shows is that we are being crammed into existing space. Being packed into tighter and tighter spaces is not my definition of being "sustained", and if it is yours, it is not the kind of existance I would want for myself nor for my decendants.
The discovery of new resources, and progress in general, happens a lot quicker when fueled by necessity.
Ah, so your solution is to create a miserable overcrowded existance so the inhabitants have no choice but to innovate or perish? Sounds like a great plan.
No, my view of human evolution is that our population continues to grow over countless millenia, both on Earth and on billions of other worlds that we settle throughout the galaxy, as we expand outward at a speed growing ever closer to the speed of light. My prediction is that unless we destroy ourselves or encounter alien intelligences that thwart our expansion, the human-machine civilization will span the entirety of our galaxy within 200,000 years.
It sounds remarkably like an infestation, with the only real difference between any other infestation by an unwanted pest is the species involved and the scale of the destruction.
It should be obvious, because I am a member of that population, and do not want myself or my descendants to cease to exist.
It is not obvious, because I too am a member and I don't share that POV. I am indifferent as to whether or not the human race continues to exist.
Well, as I've said you are not being forced to cease to exist nor are your descendants. You are free to procreate to the extent of your ability to support that procreation. Why interfere with the choice of others NOT to procreate or ask them to financially support your choice?
-
A fallacy, resources are not some pre-set, limited, quantity, that must be "rationed" between members of a population. Resources are created through work and ingenuity and the use of technology. Resources that we did not even know existed several decades or centuries ago now fuel major parts of our society. As progress continues, so to will new resources be discovered and utilized. For one, we are not using even a tiny fraction of the energy deposited on the Earth constantly by the Sun. The total energy usage of human civilization equates to approximately 0.012% of the energy deposited on Earth by the Sun. Secondly, there are other energy sources which could provide even more energy to our civilization, as needed. Given enough energy, any other necessary resources can be synthesized.
No. Not all resources are unlimited. Are you planning on making more land?
Since you are convinced that a magical supply of resources are available, why not wait until they are PROVED available before encouraging reproduction. I assure you that even if we do nothing to encourage population growth, it will be a LONG, LONG time before our population dwindles to zero.
Us expanding beyond this planet and colonizing other places is no less inevitable than the Europeans sailing across the sea to America.
You saying so, doesn't make it so. Is your view of human evolution that we trash this planet, then move on to the next one, indefinitely?
----------------------------
You avoid answering the fundamental question, If a population will itself into non-existance, why should you object?
-
Yes, I am most certainly "implying" that. A declining population is a prelude to extinction.
So what? If a population chooses to extinguish itself by not replicating itself, why should you object? Furthermore, if you do object, you do have recourse: Spread your seed (and pay for it).
This is the enviro-suicidal viewpoint that I loathe utterly. First, the planet can sustain many more people than it presently has, through the use of technology. Secondly, we are not permanently limited to just this one planet. Third, letting advanced Western societies and populations die out while third world populations grow faster than ever would not address the issue you see, even if it really was an issue.
I have serious doubts on how much more population the planet can sustain indefinitely. Further, even if the planet can sustain more people, what does that mean to the quality of life for the people on the planet. Does "sustain" to you mean being kept alive, or do you mean having access to adequate resources to have a comfortable existance. No doubt as the population increases we are squeezed into smaller and smaller living quarters and rationed fewer and fewer resources. You believe that we are not permanantly linked to one planet? Maybe, maybe not, but until it is proved that we can easily and economically transport to other planets and can sucessfully sustain life there, that suggestion seems me an illogical one to pin the hopes on for human growth.
-
Here you have stated a great fallacy. Humans do always act rationally from their own perspective. It is only others that think they have acted irrationally. You may even get someone to agree they acted irrationally but at the point in time when the apparent irrationality occurred, for whatever reason he obviously did not conclude it was irrational.
You seem to misunderstand my use of the word rationality as it relates to economic decisions. I am not talking about insane behavour or even lack of informaiton. I am talking about behavour in which decisons are clouded by emotion. Humans are full of emotions such as anger, pride, love, envy, which would cause them to make decisions which they may not otherwise make had the emotional response not influenced them.
As emotions are not easily quantifiable or even sometimes predictable from person to person, economic theory has difficulty factoring emotion-based decision-making into its models.
-
Also, I did not quite mean the system of how we are born as what you used for justice, but the maitenance of the system that you call " fair " with regards to economic transactions among unequal people. It hardly makes sense to say that something is unfair yet that we must build a system that preserves that unfairness (for little good reason, in my opinion).
Sorry I don't every recall using the word "fair" with regard to the system. Please point to the quote you mean. Fairness is a subjective designation. What I suggest is that where rules are applied they should be applied symmetricly to both parties. To do otherwise implies that someone is making a jusdgement on the "fairness" of the system. It is really up to each party in the economic transaction to put themselves into the best possible negotiating position. In the case of an employee it means making sure their skills are valuable and in demand.
-
You really should be able to opt out of this bogus scheme. I can save fine for my own retirement, thank you very much.
Unfortunately it is not practical for the government to implement such an option because of the way the plan was set up and to a certain extent is still set up. Even today the plan is not fully funded. It depends upon continued contributions of workers. In the worst case if everyone opted out, the plan would eventually collapse and would not be able to meet its obligations. This would further lead to pressure on the government for a taxpayer-funded bailout of CPP.
-
Wow. I might say something like that too, but if I said it, it would be sarcastically intended.
It is actually not farfetched. At least in some juristictions legaly bind children to look after aged parents.
Yes, parents can sue their children!Under Section 10 of the Maintenance Act of 2005, every adult has an obligation - as long as he is able to do so - to maintain his parents and grandparents if they are unable to do so themselves due to physical or mental infirmity. The law also applies to children who were cared for and nurtured by adults to whom they were not biologically related.If the children fail to do so, the dependent parents or grandparents can take their adult children to court to secure maintenance
Maintenance of Parents ActThe Act provides for Singapore residents aged 60 years old and above, who are unable to subsist on their own, to claim maintenance from their children who are capable of supporting him but are not doing so. Parents can sue their children for maintenance, in the form of monthly allowances or a lump-sum payment. The Act also establishes the Tribunal for the Maintenance of Parents to decide on applications made under the Act. -
Our economists haven't figured out the complexities of the world.
Economics for the most part assume rational decisions. Humans being humans, don't alwasy act rationally.
-
Hardly. What I am trying to suggest is that the system which you think impartially determines winners and losers according to certain rules (which you call "just" to try and set in stone) is itself biased; its rules are not a priori.
No, I did not say that the "system" which put us on this earth was "just". Some people are born beautiful, others are born ugly. Some are born smart others stupid. Some are born strong, others weak. I make no claim of the impartiality of the system, so I agree that the system can be biased. However those biases are not set up by rules man has imposed, those are biases of nature (aka life). IOW, Life is not "fair" but those are the rules handed down so live with them.
-
Since I'm a capitalist who thinks communism a failure and who has never read Marx...I think you might want to reassess the way you're viewing other posters.
OK. I'll accept you at your word but ultimately I'll let your positions determine your idealogy.
Who doesn't think Economics is part of the real world?
I have never heard that claim made by anyone. Marxists, obviously, included.
I guess that I don't know how to take yoru statement " which sound bites from Economics 101 thoroughly trumps lived reality". Economics 101, 201, 301, .... IS reality.
-
No issue here, Renegade, and an honest mistake, but just to clarify: that's not my post to which you were responding.
Yeah. My bad. A remenant of a previous cut and paste. Sorry. I fixed it so there is no confusion. Again my apologies.
-
OK, but I was responding to the wild claim--in which sound bites from Economics 101 thoroughly trumps lived reality--that the low-level employee interviewing for a WalMart job "negotiates" his terms of employment.
(Then, of course, after debunking such self-evident nonsense, I'm taken to task for pointing this out, apparently on the premise that supporting commonly-understood definitions of words (ie "negotiations") exposes my Marxist agenda.)
Your Marxist agenda needed no investigative work to expose. It was always readly apparent.
That you don't believe that Economics play is the real world, is readily apparent in your responses.
-
Who determines that a track meet is a sound way to decide anything?
Nature. Life. Karma. God. Call it what you like. You are put here through choice or chance. You compete for resources in order to survive. Of course you can decide not to compete in the race, but evolution long ago removed those who made that choice.
Who determines that what is decided by a track meet has real value? The track conditions are irrelevant. What matters is how it was decided to have a track meet in the first place.
I guess you may as well be asking "Why are we here?" "Who put me here?" and "Why am I forced to compete for resources?".
All of these I would have to answer "I have no idea". I simply address the reality that we are here and are in a competition for survival.
-
To an extent...but this holds equally true for your assessment. There is no objective God whispering Libertarian truths into prophents' ears.
A God plays no part in this. The only question is whether you agree on the fundamental premise. The premise that the only reason for restricting someone's freedom is it if impacts the freedom or potential freedom of someone else. If you agree with this, the rest is not subjective. If you believe that there are other reasons for forcibly restricting someone's freedom (ie to create a better society), then you are in the trap of making a subjective assessment of defining what constitutes "better".
You're placing simplistic Theory in a superior position to complex reality.
Further, you are applying a thetorical sleight-of-hand here: "Employees have the power to offset empoyers' powers....AND, if they don't (contradicting your sweeping claim just made), it's their own fault."
Since either I have not made myself clear or you are incapable of understanding what I'm saying, let me rephrase it for you.
Employees themselves provide the major limitations on the choices they have to sell their labour rather than state imposed limitations. Employers should enjoy the same lack of state-imposed limitations as those enjoyed by employees.
"Picket-line violence"? Really?
Never heard of it? Really? If you look the actions which many strikers undertake, you will see that there are many actions which are not lawful. One example is the prevention of replacement workers even though the company may be legaly entitled to use them.
Compared to the injuries and deaths which occur annually thanks to unsafe work conditions and insufficient education of the employees by the empoyers?
And just to put it in perspective: you are far safer as a Canadian soldier in Afghanistan, or a police officer in a metro city, then as a construction labourer or a semi-skilled miner. And a large number of these injuries and deaths are more the fault of the employers than of the employees.
I do believe there are violations of labour conditions by employers just as I believe there are violations by employees. BTW, just because a profession less safe, doesn't imply a violation by an employer. If an employee accepts the working conditions of a less safe occupation, they do so for their own reasons, including potentially better compensation than they otherwise would get. My point is that the violations ("abuses") occur on both sides and is not restricted to only one side. What is your point?
Then they should be paid the lowest wage possible. Zero won't work, I think we can agree that far (maybe we can), but...what then?
The lowest wage possible is what they willingly accept and an employer is willing to offer. Zero won't work because no one rational will accept zero. You ask what then.... What should happen then is they both abide by the terms they have agreed to. No different than any other contract.
And of course, astronomical CEO and upper Management rewards are "given" and so also taken away from the shareholder, consumer, and taxpayer.
Of course, but since it is the shareholder's capital to begin with, they should get the ultimate say on how those rewards are distributed. Consumers too get a say because they are free to walk to a competitor. By this I mean, if one company drives up its costs by astronomical executive pay, it will end up being reflective in the product price consumers pay. The consumer will then have an incentive to consume a competitor product which did not have those same costs.
-
If there is zero possibility of negotiation, then there is no negotiation. I don't know why this is so difficult to understand.
There are no negotiable terms in this circumstance. The company informs you of wages, company rules and policy, and that's that.
that you can refuse the terms and walk away does not constitute "negotiation."
Frequently "take it or leave it" type demands are tactics which are used in negotiation.I don't know why this is so difficult to understand. Whether there is a possibility of coming to a deal or not is really in the minds of both parties. In retail, frequently vendors offer goods at fixed-price (ie a take-it or leave it offer). Willing buyers will still accept they offer. You may not call this "negotiation" however the result is that both parties come to the point of mutually acceptable terms and a deal is consumated. My point stands. Either side can present "take it or leave it offers". If you don't want to call this negotiation, fine, find another word. I use the term as the process of coming to agreeable terms or finding that one cannot come to terms.
I don't know where you got the idea I was advocating any such thing. Since I never stated it, nor implied it, perhaps I accidentally wrote it in code, and you skilfully managed to decipher it.
Great, then what is your position? Do you believe state power should be used to force involuntary terms on employees, employers, or neither?
I do find it amusing to watch how defensive people get at even a whiff of criticism towards wealthy and powerful entities...to the point where the critics' own views have to be altered and concocted by the Defenders of the helpless, delicate little WalMarts of the world.
I too am amused by for some people their position is always "employers are always wrong , employees are always right".
-
Keep in mind that the CPP has changed over the years. When it was created initially, payments to pensioners were taken out of payments from current workers (with any extra revenue stored in government securities). So, back then you didn't really "get much" from the plan.
Actually, I think that if you were one of the early pensioners, you got quite alot. The initial plan was operated as a pay-as-you-go plan and had a large working population supporting a small set of pensioners. Pension payouts were relatively substantial because of the larger contributor base.
But back in the 90s, they changed the structure. CPP now invests in various stocks and bonds (some Canadian, some Foreign). So they are getting a 'real' return similar to mutual funds. (Personally, I think this is one of the smarter things Martin did as finance minister.)
You can see the investments here:
I've seen it estimated somewhere that anyone born after 1980 will never realize as much out of the plan as they put in. (Accounting for inflation-adjusted dollars). The contribution rate was increased from 6% to 9.9% without a corresponding increase in benefits. Not a particularly good outcome for workers and employers, but it likely saved the plan from collapse due to the way it had been operating.
-
This article shows how a biased position can be supported by selective facts:
But they get less for their money. Those who earn a low wage beyond their first several years in the workforce will generally live shorter lives, and will thus collect CPP benefits for fewer years than high-wage earners. Their increase in CPP benefits would come with a reduction in other government benefits.Daw: Bigger CPP should be fair to low-wage earners
The article seem to define "fair" as if a low-wage earner has a tendancy to live shorter lives, they should be paid more CPP to offset the reduced lifespan.
I wonder if the author would support, smaller payouts for women because they live longer lives, or larger payouts for smokers who have reduced lifespans.
It might be in interesting exercise if we applied this definition of "fair" to other social programs. Perhaps women should pay higher EI rates due to the fact that they are at higher risk of collecting due to pregnancy. Or perhaps old people should pay higher healthcare rates due to their increased usage of the healthcare system.
I'm all for it if the author wants to use this definition of "fair" as it appplies to social program, but he should not expect that its applicability should be restricted only to poor people getting CPP.
-
You wanna bet. I've been there and they control what gets to the Directors. Negotiation isn't just about asking / demanding changes.
So what you mean is that the request would be shot down by the appointed representative of the Directors? It didn't stop them from asking the appointed representative, did it?
While you are at it, can you please explain how the personal fortune of the managers would be affected by not considering such a reasonable offer?
Caterpillar to close London, Ont. locomotive plant
in Provincial Politics in Canada
Posted
Have a read: The $5-million Electro-Motive subsidy that wasn't