In Canada Fathers lose child benefits if they get a girlfriend

a reply to: Kalsek

So then if you are gay then you are okay, right? lol

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Kalsek
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Huh? Every family gets the money. When they seperate the amount is split in half to both parents.

You mean welfare and child benefits?

Who gives a snip about that? Your already fooked if your relying on that

What kind of garbage comment is this? Plenty of people need assistance.

The point of the topic is to point out the double standard against men. Your post should be deleted.

a reply to: dawnstar

It's definitely a case by case basis. But I feel that when no abuse or neglect is present with either parents, then custody should be 50/50 with nobody paying child support.

originally posted by: drz400

originally posted by: MALBOSIA

originally posted by: Kalsek
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Huh? Every family gets the money. When they seperate the amount is split in half to both parents.

You mean welfare and child benefits?

Who gives a snip about that? Your already fooked if your relying on that

What kind of garbage comment is this? Plenty of people need assistance.

The point of the topic is to point out the double standard against men. Your post should be deleted.

I guess I am old fashioned. Hopefully said victim is doing more to support himself than rely on government assistance. Construction doesnt pay less than 18/hr for a basic laborer and the industry is always looking for skilled workers, so my heart doesnt bleed much for those working for minimum wage.

I am a conservative living in Vancouver. Your not liking my views is something I have grown accustom to. Good luck.

originally posted by: Kalsek
a reply to: burdman30ott6

Exactly that, the state pays them for being parents and expenses related to that. To be for or against this has nothing to do with my op tho. This is the Canadian reality, parents get money from the government monthly. My op is about the gender inequality of it.

Wow!!! I'm kind of blown away... this gives new meaning to "then nanny State"""

How about a "breathing benefit"
Maybe a "taking a crap benefit"

So let me get this straight. If I'm responsible and limit or don't have kids I am still going to pay for those that choose to have 8 kids to increase their "Benefits"????

originally posted by: dawnstar
a reply to: Jess_Undefined


The ERA amendment probably would have prevented alot of what you are complaining about and things would be a tad bit better, but it was never passed. And, it wasn't just men who were against it, there were plenty of women also.
If there is inequality in the workplace (which there is) along with inequality in the home (women still seem to burden most of the day to day duties there) then, I am sorry, you are gonna end up seeing inequality in the courts when the family fractures. Because men still seem to gain worth in the employers eyes when they become fathers while women lose that worth even when they don't plan on having kids, well, the man's job will usually end up being more important, in the eyes of the man, in the eyes of his wife, and if things blow up, in the eyes of the courts. none of them really want to jeopardize the employment of the highest earner in the family, so it's the mom who ends up taking off work when the kids are sick at school, or the babysitter is sick, ect. And, why should the courts give the dad the main custody of the kids when it's been mom all along that's been giving them baths, nursing them back to health, helping them with their homework, and making sure they are getting good meals on a daily basis?
I agree, it's a crappy deal all around, and, hopefully as time goes by, the inequalities will diminish more and more. But, it will take the significant change in those areas I mentioned before the courts can change.

Wait up, wait up ! Inequality in the workplace you say ? So if 19y.o twins Timmy & Tammy start working at say the local greyhound bus depot as Interstate bus drivers & in the course of the week they work same hours driving buses are you telling us that Timmy takes home more pay than Tammy ? No? Didn't think so. It's an old smoke n mirrors act from the feminism conglomerate that falls down once it's discovered how these bogus arguments come about.I don't know who did it or when it was that you gals got it into your heads that Sharon the child care worker should get the same take home pay as Shane the boiler maker, but you should all stop it & refocus on getting that utopian dream of pure equality between men & women where it is grossly lacking-Family Courts !

a reply to: Jess_Undefined

so, your solution...
50/50 custody would just about double their combined household expense?? I mean, you just made it so that both need living quarters for a whole family, didn't you? unless of course, you make the main home the property of the kids with both parents paying 50/50 for the expenses of it. then they can either share the expense of the crappy one bedroom which they switch off occupying during the time that they don't have custody, or if they are rich enough, maybe they can each have their own place. Then, they should also be sharing the time that the children need supervision in a way that enables them both to hold a job without excessive interference by the kid's needs. It could work, but it would also require both to have the ability to earn enough to support themselves along with sharing half of the expense of the kids.

a reply to: fotsyfots
don't know about the busdriver timmy and tammy...
but well,
how about this one...
a women is working in a printshop, she's in her third year in the company. in those three years she has worked at just about every machine, and has become proficient in many. she's often been there after everyone else has gone, still there helping get the product out. she's even hand delivered the product to different stores one the way home and during the weekend to ensure they are delivered in a timely manner. one day, well, immigration comes in and hauls away the illegal alien that had been working on the back end of the big UV printer. so, she is put in that place till they can hire someone.
which they eventually do and she is back on the laminator. well, time goes by, the new guy does okay although she if finding him asking her questions about this or that every now and then. then, she finds out that hey, this guy, who had to be trained, who she was helping train really, was brought in getting over a dollar more an hour than she was making!
she worked more hours than just about anyone there... walked away at the end of the year with a nice big check covering most of the holiday, sick day, vacation day pay because she never took most of it. worked about 20 miles from home so hubby was getting the calls from school when the kids were sick. and oh ya, this guy, that came in making more than I was..... he didn't stay long, he "slipped" on the ice one day coming into work "hurt" his back.. child support had found him and started taking money out of his check. her husband ended up having to buy a new vehicle around this time, guess who was working in the shop of the place where he bought the van??? yep!! you guessed it, mr. I hurt my back and can't work was doing mechanics work in the garage!!! she was worth less than a guy who didn't even have the loyalty or moral integrity not to rip our employer off via workman's comp!!!
maybe the difference is that she worked at a small company of less the 30 people while your twins worked for a big corporation. but, I assure you the story I just told is true!! and well, by the time she left the workforce, she had around 10 years experience in the printing industry shared between two companies.
guess what, she never, ever, got to a pay rate of $13/hour that was given as the cost of childcare. she never got to a pay rate that she felt she could actually hold her own... she never got to that $10/hour that reader's digest had claimed was the equivilant of the value that social service was giving away to a non working mom with two kids!!