Relationships in Canada: the male perspective

[ViRuCa]

These people were single when they were in their mid 20's. Being a single 23 year old. and being a single 33 year old are two completely different experiences.

А что в Канаде все женятся/выходят замуж до 25?

скорее после 30

[Oleg]

I had the women who posted in this thread in mind, when I was making my latest post. But you are right, it is better to change the ages to 33 and 43.

Having said all of that, I have to admit that you have a point, and you might be onto something. I will have to think a little more about this one!

[ViRuCa]

I had the women who posted in this thread in mind, when I was making my latest post. But you are right, it is better to change the ages to 33 and 43.

Having said all of that, I have to admit that you have a point, and you might be onto something. I will have to think a little more about this one!

Олег, терпеливо жду вашего ответа на мой вопрос про финансовую сторону

[Oleg]

I was talking about the person who is considering to get married. Such a person might be interested in probability that his or her future self will think that getting married was a mistake. Well, we know that this probability is at least 50%, because that is the probability of divorce. But some couples stay together long after their feelings for each other are gone. This implies that probability that the person will regret getting married is higher than 50%.

The Cuban analogy allows us to conclude that in the hypothetical case when the person doesn't know what he or she gave up when she stopped being single and got married, this person would tend to be happier (compared to the real world case, when the person is aware of what he or she gave up).





> Олег, терпеливо жду вашего ответа на мой вопрос про финансовую сторону

You are absolutely right! If there are no kids, and the wife earns similar amount to the husband, the issues that I talked about are not important. I still stand by the sentence Perhaps the only criteria for marrying someone should really be "Am I excited to merge my finances with him/her?" that I quoted in "Divorce in North America" thread. If a medical doctor was to ask me to marry her, I would definitely accept her proposal. Even though I don't know anything about her.

[Oleg]

A person who was married for a year or two in his 20's, will have to split his pension with his ex wife until he dies. (I personally know a man who is in this situation.) I could go on and on, but I won't.

Олег, а вы уверены в этой информации? по-моему это неполная информация или некорректно преподносите. пенсия делится при разводе, но только уже нажитая пенсия, а не все накопленное until he dies. Так что вклад в RRSP подлежащий дележке за год или два не так уж значителен. Не говоря уже о том что in his 20's люди часто вообще еще ничего не кладут в RRSP.

I was at a job interview. They took me to a restaurant. At the restaurant, I talked about being single. (Canadian laws don't allow interviewers to ask about this, but the candidate can volunteer this information about himself.) One of the interviewers, a man in his 60's, said that he thinks that I am right. He said that all of his life he tried to educate himself about how to invest his savings. He said that he realized that all of the investment decisions he made during his life earned him an amount that was insignificant compared to how much he lost because of his short first marriage. If I remember correctly (this conversation happned many years ago), his wife didn't work, and he was required by the court to ensure that her standard of living doesn't change after the divorce. Not only was he still making payments to her when he was in his 60's, but he expected to have to share his pension with her.

I didn't get the job, so unfortunately I can't ask him for the details. But his story definitely sounded like a horror story. The government should ask this man to speak to all grooms on their wedding day. (This is a joke that has to do with the thread about animal cruelty and seals.)

[JT]

One of the interviewers, a man in his 60's, said that he thinks that I am right. He said that all of his life he tried to educate himself about how to invest his savings. He said that he realized that all of the investment decisions he made during his life earned him an amount that was insignificant compared to how much he lost because of his short first marriage. If I remember correctly (this conversation happned many years ago), his wife didn't work, and he was required by the court to ensure that her standard of living doesn't change after the divorce. Not only was he still making payments to her when he was in his 60's, but he expected to have to share his pension with her.

Да, я тоже много похожего слышал. Причём я слышал один раз про обратную ситуацию - муж без англ. языка, себе уровень жизни настоящего мачо сам обеспечить не может. Пенсии делятся пополам, да бывает.
Если у вас нет Investments - то вам их не потерять

[ViRuCa]

вот тут хорошо написано про spousal support http://www.westlawecarswell.com/spousal ... p#contents
вкратце - не все так страшно
без детей "The amount of spousal support is 1.5-2% of the difference between the spouses’ gross incomes for each year of marriage and duration is 0.5 to one year of support for each year of marriage, with duration becoming indefinite after 20 years."

[JT]

because of his short first marriage. <...> Not only was he still making payments to her when he was in his 60's,

with duration becoming indefinite after 20 years

Похоже, у дедули первый брак был в 40. (60-20=40)
Да здравствует канадская медицина!
Или что там нельзя определить через 20 лет? Как-то витеевато написано.
ViRuCa,
а ведь помимо support есть ещё и совместно нажитое непосильным трудом. Олег про это говорит.

[ViRuCa]

because of his short first marriage. <...> Not only was he still making payments to her when he was in his 60's,

with duration becoming indefinite after 20 years

Похоже, у дедули первый брак был в 40. (60-20=40)
Да здравствует канадская медицина!

да нет же, если брак дольше 20 лет то алименты могут быть пожизненными, а если брак

short first marriage

то 1.5-2% of the difference between the spouses’ gross incomes for each year of marriage and duration is 0.5 to one year of support for each year of marriage
То есть за один год брака он ей отдаст 2% разницы их зарплат.

[JT]

да нет же, если брак дольше 20 лет то алименты могут быть пожизненными,

Тогда каким боком юноша влетел на пожизненное за КОРОТКИЙ ПЕРВЫЙ брак? (Lost because of his short first marriage).
- "duration is 0.5 to one year of support for each year of marriage"

her standard of living doesn't change after the divorce. Not only was he still making payments to her when he was in his 60's, [sic!]

PS Кстати, всё-таки основные страсти должны кипеть вокруг RRSP, 401k etc.

[Oleg]

ViRuCa, thank you for looking this up.

I definitely remember that he said that his marriage was short, and happened decades ago.
As they say
"За что купил, за то продал".

Perhaps he had a child with that woman? The guidelines seem to imply that in this case the support could be indefinite.

Also, note that
"These advisory guidelines are very different from the Federal Child Support Guidelines. They are not being legislated by the federal government. They are informal guidelines that will operate on an advisory basis only. The proposed advisory guidelines will be used to determine the amount and duration of spousal support within the existing legal framework of the Divorce Act and the judicial decisions interpreting its provisions. The guidelines are not legally binding and their adoption and use will be voluntary. They are intended as a practical tool to assist spouses, lawyers, mediators and judges in typical cases. The basic formulas, variations and exceptions are intended to build upon current practice, reflecting best practices and emerging trends across the country."

So it seems that these are Unofficial guidelines. They are based on the decisions that the judges are starting to make.

So it is possible that he got unlucky, all of those years ago, and had a tough judge. Or, perhaps the 0's were an extremely bad time to get divorced.

In any case thank you for posting this link.

[JT]

Perhaps he had a child with that woman?

Тогда да, это алименты просто.
Алименты есть и за пределами Северной Америки. Не факт, где они больше, в какой стране.

[Oleg]

Perhaps he had a child with that woman?

Тогда да, это алименты просто.

No, the kid(s) must be over 18 now, and he was expecting to have to share his pension with that woman. ViRuCa's unofficial guidelines seem to imply that the support may last for an indefinite time, in such cases.

[Nega]

[Бойцовый кролик]

В тему:

Уравнение 1

Человек = кушать + спать + работать + развлекаться

Обезьяна = кушать + спать

Следовательно:

Человек = Обезьяна + работать + развлекаться

Следовательно:

Человек - развлекаться = Обезьяна + работать

Вывод 1: человек, который не развлекается, подобен обезьяне, которая работает.

Уравнение 2

Мужчина = кушать + спать + зарабатывать деньги

Обезьяна = кушать + спать

Следовательно:

Мужчина = Обезьяна + зарабатывать деньги

Следовательно:

Мужчина - зарабатывать деньги = Обезьяна

Вывод 2: Мужчина, который не зарабатывает, подобен обезьяне

Уравнение 3

Женщина = кушать + спать + тратить деньги

Обезьяна = кушать + спать

Следовательно:

Женщина = Обезьяна + тратить деньги

Следовательно:

Женщина - тратить деньги = Обезьяна

Вывод3: Женщина, которая не тратит деньги, подобна обезьяне.

Заключение

Из уравнений 2 и 3:

Мужчина, который не зарабатывает деньги = Женщина, которая не тратит деньги

Т.О. Мужчина зарабатывает деньги, чтобы Женщины не стали Обезьянами! (Аксиома 1)

И Женщины тратят деньги, чтобы Мужчины не стали Обезьянами (Аксиома 2)

И что мы получаем из этого?

Мужчина + Женщина = Обезьяна + зарабатывать деньги + Обезьяна + тратить деньги

Следовательно:

Исходя из Аксиомы 1 и Аксиомы 2, можно заключить, что:

Мужчина + Женщина = 2 Обезьяны, которые живут счастливо вместе!

[Nega]

а вообще, мне очень нравится куда понеслась тема.
Ещё немножко и пойдут сухие цифры/документы, что очень даже интересно.
Эмоции эмоциями, а юрид. подкованность ни в какой стране не помешает...
Я вот читаю и вижу, что сколько интересного я лично не знала.
Спасибо за инфу. Безо всяких шуток!

P.S. БК, эта пять!

[Oleg]

Человек - развлекаться = Обезьяна + работать

Вывод 1: человек, который не развлекается, подобен обезьяне, которая работает.

Чем больше мужчина может потратить денег, тем больше времени он будет развлекатся.

Чем больше женщина тратит денег, тем меньше будет тратить денег мужчина, и тем более его жизнь будет подобна жизни обезьяны которая работает.

Получается что если не хочешь жить как обезьяна которая работает, то надо оставаться холостым.

Q.E.D.

[JT]

he was expecting to have to share his pension with that woman.

Да, я слышал, что пенсионные планы делят так же, как имущество. Уж 401k по крайней мере.
Но это - не то же, что "выплачивать".
Это скорее "раздел имущества". Просто RRSP причисляют к инвестициям, да? Кстати, долги ведь тоже делят.

[Oleg]

he was expecting to have to share his pension with that woman.

Да, я слышал, что пенсионные планы делят так же, как имущество. Уж 401k по крайней мере.
Но это - не то же, что "выплачивать".
Это скорее "раздел имущества". Просто RRSP причисляют к инвестициям, да?

I am pretty sure that he was actually talking about the pension from his employer. But maybe I am wrong, and it really was all about his RRSP.

[Бойцовый кролик]

Еще к вопросу о дискриминации по половому признаку: