Renegade

MH, Why then in your opinion is it wrong? I'm not sure I'd agree. However, if people willing sold themselves it wouldn't really be slavery would it? Don't we (to a limited extent) do this anyway in that we sell our labour to an employer in exchange for benefits? No I'm not saying that majority rule is simply wrong. What I am saying is that simply because the majority deem it to be acceptable, doesn't make it right. I use slavery as an example to demonstrate that point. I agree, majority rule isn't perfect and gross transgressions happen. Examples abound of majorities opressing the minority. The constitution, while intended to protect the rights of the minority isn't perfect either. It only protects certain minority groups against discrimination and only protects a limited set of rights. (As an aside, it specificly names the minorities, it deems wothy of protection. What happens in 300 years when there are new minority groups?). The constitution provides very little protection of economic rights. What exactly in the constitution prevents the majority from deciding that the minority should pay 100% of the taxes? No argument from me here, but even more fundamental in my opinion is to examine the reason for taxation. It is obvious that taxation pays for services, but beyond that taxation also pays for wealth redistribution. It that fair, and if so by who's standard of fairness?

For the most part we individually are born into the rules of our society. We did not get together agree on a set of rules for our mutual benefit. The nature of the rules mean that some benefit and some do not. Let's apply your logic to a situation which existed in the 18th and 19th century, slavery in the US. Undoubtedly slaves were part of US society. Undoubtedly the slaves received some benefits in that their food and shelter were provided. Some of them were forcibly introduced into the community, some were born into it. Do you think that the slaves "make a mutual commitment to define and abide by an agreed set of rules"? Overall these rules did not benefit them and were imposed upon them by the larger society. I will also state that the definitions of right and wrong are important and it is clearly incorrect that "politics of human interaction will determine whether or not either ethics or morals play into the needs and desires of the majority of members within that specific society" as it applies to slavery. We can all agree that slavery is wrong because it is coerced.

There is a distinction between phsysical custody and legal custody. Legal joint custody means that both parents make joint decisions regarding the child in question. Phsysical custody means the portion of time the child will reside with that parent. Courts have been giving more legal joint custody to both parents, however this is not true of physical custody. In most cases the bias is toward the mother and she will get sole physical custody (ie child resides with the mother more than 60% of the time). Child support is determined by physical custody not legal custody. If the mother has sole physical custody then the father is expected to pay the full amount according to the tables. The amount isn't affected if the father has the child 39% of the time or 0% of the time.

Interesting argument you put forward geoffery. In other threads you have advocated that if the federal government takes too much of Alberta's revenues, Alberta should be independant (ie opt out of the taxation contract). Does your argument not hold then? Are not Albertans by virtue of the fact that they "choose" to live in Canada bound by the terms of the social contract to be bound to the wishes of the majority of Canadians? If they didn't like it could they Albertans not emmigrate? BTW, if you do believe that Alberta can opt out of a social contract by declaring themselves independant, why can't I have that same privlidge? (ie delcare myself a nation of 1, not subject to Canadian laws or social contract?

If you measure getting your money's worth by the services you get relative to what you pay in taxes, almost every working middle-class taxpayer is being ripped off. Why? 1. Your taxes subidize payments to those who pay little or no taxes. (children, seniors collecting OAS, welfare recepients, etc) 2. Your taxes pay for programs you probably don't want but have no choice but to pay for. 3. Our progressive income tax system means that if you earn a decent salary you overpay for even those services you do get. Frankly most of the federal services provided to me, I could get for less if I bought them privately, assuming I wanted them at all. So where does this money collected in taxes go, if not for services? It goes to income-redistribution (transfers of wealth) and overhead. Is it worth the price to me? Definately not.

You seem to imply that it is the male partner who forces the woman to stay at home and be a mom, while they continue their career ascent. In most cases this is not true. Many times, it is very much the desire of the woman to stay home and bring up the kids and forgo the career benefits. They do this because they make choices of what are priorities in their lives. There are many couples where the woman decided that her career was equally important, and thus was unwilling to stay home and be a full-time child raiser. Ultimately woman have considerable control in their choices and must also ultmately also bear the responsibilty of diminished earnings. I will agree that where a couple has jointly decided to forgo the career advancement of one spouse in order to raise children, that economic burden should be equally shared among both spouses. This equalization is called spousal support and is independant of child-support which is the issue in this thread. It is an interesting question on whether a spouse is entitled to the same lifestyle after marriage as during marriage. My answer would be no. A spouse who's lifestyle is better simply because it is subsidized by the earning power of the other spouse, is not "entitled" to it. It is simply a byproduct of the marriage. Once the marriage ends, there is no reason one spouse should expect the other to subsidize the other's lifestyle. Kids do change the dynamic, however, since it is difficult to separate the lifestyle of the custodial parent from that of the kids. Because of this, the non-custodial parent (mostly fathers) are unfairly penalized because they are forced to support not only the lifestyle of the kids, but of the ex-spouse as well. In my view, what is called for is greater accountability to ensure that child-support payments are specificly destined to cover the child's expenses. Frankly I don't see age as being much of a factor in dominance in adult relationships. ("Listen to me because I'm older"). The age discrepancy is probably a factor which explains why men are more likely to be economically better off than their spouse, as they have had 5 more years to develop their career. I'm not sure what point you are trying to make. For many reasons men earn more, so it would be expected that fathers with custody are better off financially than mothers with custody. One can read this statistic as saying that single fathers are better providers for their kids than are single mothers. Perhaps courts should award custody based upon which parent is a better provider. You seem to assume that custodial mothers are economically worse off simply because they sacrificed their career for 20 years. There are many other explainations: 1. They may have had a less lucrative career (or no career) from the very start. In this case they would be economically worse off regardless of if they were married or not. 2. They may have wanted and pushed for the choice to stay home. For many woman the drive to stay home and nurture is strong (more so than for men), so many willingly want to persue this choice over an economically beneficial career. 3. Older men, younger women. The older spouse has more experience and time to develop a career. Are single never married custodial mothers better off financially than single never married custodial fathers? Indeed, the points I was making above is that women can control their own destiny, and when they make poor choices they indeed should accept the blame. Society lets them off the hook somewhat by economically penalizing men through excessive child-support payments to subsidize some of the choices women themselves have made. Exactly, yet men are usually painted as the villans in these battles.

Why should charity be mandatory? In my view it should always be voluntary.

In pondering the SCC decision, it would seem that the law is primarily constructed to create uniform and consistant child-support settlements which are are easy to calculate. Under "normal" conditions, only a few factors are considered in deriving the amount for child-support. In most cases the only factors which influence the amount of support are the payor's income, the province, and the number of kids. There are a multitude of factors which are not considered in the support formula. The variance of these factors can have a huge impact on the percieved fairness of the child-support payment. Consider the following scenarios: 1. Let's say the payor parent wins a huge sum in a lottery. Does this influence the child-support payment? No it does not, ecause a lottery win is not considered income! Let's say the payee wins a huge sum in a lottery. Does this influence the child-support payment? No it does not. The child-support payment isn't influenced by the payee's income. Even if the payee earned 10X what the payor does, the payor's child support amount is the same. (Unless it causes "undue hardship" to the payor) 2. Compare two payees who live in different parts of the same province, say Ontario. One lives in Toronto, the other in small town Ontario. The one in Toronto faces relatively high costs for accomodation and services. The one in small town Ontario does not. Is there a difference in child-support paymetns assuming other conditions are the same. No, there is no provision in law for that. 3. What about changing family circumstances? Let's say a mother get's $2000/month in child support for one child. Post divorce she bears additional children from a very-low income father. She gets no support for the additional children, and her own income is also low. Is there any assurance that the $2000/month that the first father pays actually goes to supporting the standard of the original child he fathered? Not a chance! The original payor payment is used to support the mother and the whole brood, regardless of the wishes of the payor. I'm sure there are many more circumstances I could enumerate, but in general it is a safe assumption that where the payee is not fair-minded and only looking out for its own self-interest, the payor is bound to be screwed.

In Ontario, if it is an uncontested divorce you don't need lawyers. You can file the papers yourself. It is reviewed by a judge and as long as the judge is satisified that it meets the legal requirements, you are granted a peliminary judgement for divorce. All you pay are the fees involved.

First, I don't think anyone except the moderator can delete an entire thread. Second, if you are accusing Riverwind of deleting a thread I would find that behaviour uncharacteristic of Riverwind and difficult to believe.

This statistic may be interpreted as indicating that mothers did not pull their weight financially during a marriage and were subsidized by the father. Upon dissolution of the marriage when the mothers are forced to contribute more financially, they end up with a lower lifestyle. A more interesting comparison would be between mothers who are divorced and those single never-married mothers in similar circumstance. by single never-married mothers I mean mothers who chose to be single parents and exclude the father, such that the father was never part of the support equation. I wonder if such a comparison would show that divorced mothers are in fact worse off.

There are way too many mothers who routinely deny court ordered visitation and access rights, however, the courts almost never punishes the mother for such actions. Child support and access is a complete contract - if the mother does not live up to her side of the deal then the father should be automatically freed his obligations as well. The support obligation by the parent is to the child not to the mother. I agree with BD. The two issues should be kept separate and denying visitation should not impact support obligations. However, perhaps a parent who denies visitation should have custody revoked as they have proved incapable of living up to the terms of the custody arrangement.

Kudos to you and your ex for being mature enough to work out an arrangment which you both agreed was fair and also because you had a open enough relationship, even after the split, that you could discuss and come to resolution on in the face of changing circumstances. Unfortunately for many couples, the lack of communication and maturity which caused the marital breakdown in the first place are the same issues which preclude an amicable settlement upon a split. I agree with you that lawyers do nothing to heal the rift as each has an obligation to look after the best interest of his own client. This frequently exasperates an already bad situation.

To buy a product based soley on its source of origin would be the stupidest thing we could do as a consumer. It would only give those manufacturers incentive to produce shoddy products knowing that they have a captive market who will differentiate on geographic source rather than quality or value. Go ask the Soviets how well their products were made under communism when they enforced a policy of only making available domestic products.

There is no excuse for any parent to not support their children. I don't know the specifics of the case but it would seem that the father is frustrated by support rules which in his view are unfair and are unilaterally imposed upon him and thus seeks ways to duck those rules. You have not stated it, so how much does he actually pay in child-support? Does the amount he pays actually cover his share of the actual support cost for the child (of course assuming the wife also needs to contribute to the support cost)?

It is always preferable to work out a voluntary arrangement which is equitable to both sides. For many people however even a voluntary arrangement is not equitable because the arrangement is made under threat the arrangements could default to the unfair legislated guidelines. IMV the child-support amount should not be based upon the income of the spouse, as much as on the needs of the child. A disabled child may have greater needs than a non-disabled child and should thus be entitled to greater support. The support costs should always be shared between the custodial and non-custodial parent.

Gov't should as much as possible stay out of people's lives so that they can make themselves as happy or unhappy as they choose to be. No one is responsible for our own happiness except ourselves.

You fail to provide a source for your quote above, so it is hard to see the complete context. I understand that the amount specified in the child support tables are supposed to "in principle" factor in that the custodial parent is also supposed to contribute to the support of the child, but as a practical matter, support by the custodial parent is only assumed but not enforced. The custodial parent can spend as much or as little as they choose on their child, whereas the non-custodial parent has no choice in the matter. If you are familiar with the child support guidelines you will see that in sole-custody situations that there is no provision to include the income of the custodial parent. If you dispute this perhaps you can explain why a support order as per the guidlines is the same regardless if the custodial parent makes $150,000 or $10,000

IMV the ruling is consistent with the law and was not unexpected. The real issue I think is with the law itself. Support payment are only based upon the income of the non-custodial parent. Support payments do not take into consideration: 1. The income of the custodial parent (usually the mother) 2. The actual need of the supported child. 3. The actual amount of money the non-custodial parent (generally the father) spends on the child. To compound the unfairness, the non-custodial parent, gets NO SAY in how the money is spent, or even if it is spent on the child at all. The SCC ruling is quite consistent in continuing the beating that non-custodial parents have recieved.

The discrimmination against gays is only one symptom. The policies promote discrimmination based upon maritial status. That discriminates not only aginst gays but anyone who has a different interpretation of what marriage is. In my view, that discrimmination is wrong, and is justification enough to change government policies. It becomes a question of numbers since no system is perfect. There are a relatively small number of adult children living at home with well off parents so giving out 'undeserved' benefits to these few would not affect the overall financing if the program. There are a large number of zero or low income spouses living with well off partners so the gov't has to exclude them or lower the benefits paid out to each person. Your argument is simply that it is ok to treat some people unfairly if it is a small amount of people relative to the overall population. I disagree with that view. What I have given is simply one example. I'm sure there are many more. Regardless, just because the policy affects only a few doesn't make it right and it should be changed. You could also argue that the opposite-sex marriage definition is suitable for the majority and it discrimminates against only a few (the homosexual population) so why change it?

The question becomes why. If the reason that individuals get a higher GST rebate than a married couple, is because they live separately and thus spend more, and thus pay higher GST, then that should be sufficient test, not that they are married. So a married couple living apart should be entitled to the same GST credit as two individuals living apart. A deduction available to a married couple because are interdependant should also be available to other individuals who are also interdependant. There is not need to base this upon whether they are married. If the policies are the issue, they should change the policies, not invent or resort to a definition of marriage. I don't see using family income as any more valid than using an individual's income. The designation of what is a family is somewhat arbitraty and becoming more so as our society becomes more accomodating to different family types. Suppose I, as an adult, make no income and live with my millionaire parents. Am I more entitled to the social benefits than a couple with one rich spouse and one poor one?

Scenario A: Couples sign a single marriage contract defined by the gov't. Every gov't dept will refer to that standard contract when writing policies.Scenario B: Couples must sign different 'marriage contracts' for each gov't department. Scenario A requries a lot less paperwork and bureaucracy. I don't think you understood what I meant. For example the CCRA should define the terms of what qualifies one to claim another as a deduction. This is completely separated from the construct of marriage. The immigration department should define under what conditions you can sponsor someone. Again, independant of the construct or marriage. Neither case requires couples to sign different marriage contracts for each govt department. BTW, as an aside I can't think of any good reason any government department should be discrimminating on the basis of marital status. In my view that is an unreasonable ask in many cases. We don't require that married couples live together, why should we require that singles live apart. The fact that people have to do this at all, to me shows how muddled the situation is.

I disagree. Different departments do not need to use marital status as a means of discrimmination. They need to use whatever criteria is valid for the situation they are qualifying. Enforcing maritial contracts are also a recent invention. While they may have been unwritten marital contracts prior, there was no real enforcement except social expectation. Personally I don't see that they have taken on an unwritten contract beyond there terms they verbally agree to, should people choose to live together, but I can see how you would view that differently. In any case, I could live with the situation you describe, if it were clear on the steps you could take to opt out. In my view those steps are far from clear and it is very easy to unintentionally default into obligations you did not intend.

Riverview, August, you should see from the discussion above that the whole concept of government defining marriage leads to a legal morass. The fact that two different government departments would have different views on if a a couple are married or not further underlines the absurdity. This is the point the original poster was trying to make. If the CCRA stuck to what was required to qualify for beneifts without wading into the issue of marriage, no one would have an issue. Similarly if immigration defined the sponsorship requirements without resorting to "marriage" no one would have an issue. (Look at the whole "marriage of convienience" mess). You're right. The fact that someone would have to walk a legal minefield in order to not take on obligations he doesn't actually want, is in my mind, an absurd situation which government has brought upon itself. Personally I think the original poster's suggestion is the best way to simplify this situation. The government should stay out of defining marriage, and people should self-declare their state. Any other situation leads to the messy situation we have today.

The CCRA doesn't just accept your declaration that you are married. For example two people, who in fact are roommates, declare themselves to the CCRA to be married to gain tax benefits. The CCRA will disallow such a claim if audited on the baisis that the couple is not really married. The point is that it shouldn't be left to a CCRA presumption. If you deem yourself to be be single, you should be allowed that designation. It seems the CCRA (and government) has only two states an individual can be in. Single or Married. In reality the nature of relationships is that it is much graduated. I can be living with my girlfriend, and we can pool our resources, but we may not have an exclusive conjugal relationship, hence I may not consider myself "married". Why should government force this designation on me? While interesting, I wasn't looking to sidetrack the discussion on the merits of the beneift programs. What is clear is that discrimmination based upon marital status occurs. I think you have to look at why it is reasonable to target certain taxpayers on the basis of marital status. In the case of GST credit and spousal deduction, it is based upon the presumption that income and expenses are pooled. In a pooled income/expense situation, the overall GST collected by the couple will be less because expenses will be less. Similarly the spousal deduction, is to accomodate income which is shared across two. The tests should then be according to the intent. For example the test for qualification of those benefits should be if income and expenses are shared. It should be irrelevant if the couple is married or not, or even if the couple is related or not. Yes, you are right if your actions demonstrate invalidation then the agreement will be invalid. I don't think the example you gave would necessarily invalidate the agreement. Having kids with someone doesn't marry you to someone (in my view anyway). If you intend to live in a conjugal relationship and sign a contract to that effect that you don't want to take on the marital obligations, I don't see how having kids changes that. All having kids would do is have you assume parential obligations but not necessarily marital ones. I agree with your interpretation of how a contract can be invalidated, but to me it is not clear on what actions would invalidate a contract. You presume that to be "not married" finances need to be separate. There are couples who are married whose finances are separate, and there are couple who are not married who pool their finances for economic reasons.