# $1000/month challenge



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

Saw this someplace else not sure if it was posted on this site.

This guy challenged himself to live on $1000 a month.

http://www.dealerity.com/2011/01/17/the-1000-challenge-extreme-frugal-living/


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

LOL alright. I read the website (which had tons of ads on it btw) and was left with one question - WHY. Why is he doing this? What does he plan to accomplish? Does he have a problem with saving money? Is he creating buzz for donating to charity? I don't get it.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

It's really not that hard. I lived on less than $1000 / month as a student, excluding tuition (although if I went to a cheaper school, I could have managed it).


----------



## yupislyr (Nov 16, 2009)

Well that was easy. lol. Based on the way he is doing it, I already do this every month, and quite easily.

I've been doing it to max out my RRSP/TFSA and pay off my mortgage (done in August as of this moment)

I guess it's much harder for someone who's used to blowing through $4000 a month though.


----------



## jamesbe (May 8, 2010)

I couldn't come close including living expenses. My mortgage payment alone is $1900 a month! Property taxes another $400, then utilities etc.

But for the rest could I live on $450 (food / entertainment, gas for my car etc). I think so ... Groceries are about $250 a month for 2 of us though.


----------



## lister (Apr 3, 2009)

$1000 all-in? No way now but 15-16 years ago when my apartment rent was $500/month that may have been possible. Now mortgage, condo fee, property taxes, insurances, etc easily blow past $1000.

I could probably do $1000 on discretionary spending per month. I'm in the process of feeding all my transactions into a financial program so I'll know shortly.


----------



## Four Pillars (Apr 5, 2009)

My family lives on $1,000 per month (each). It's not that hard.


----------



## dealerity (Mar 24, 2011)

the-royal-mail said:


> LOL alright. I read the website (which had tons of ads on it btw) and was left with one question - WHY. Why is he doing this? What does he plan to accomplish? Does he have a problem with saving money? Is he creating buzz for donating to charity? I don't get it.


Royal Mail,

Thanks for the feedback. I address why it took on the challenge in this post, which I referred back to throughout the month. Here's the link where I discussed my motivations for taking on the challenge. 

The hope was that the challenge would teach me the value of a dollar and help me empthasize with those living at the poverty line. While I don't have trouble saving money, I also spend a lot more than I need to.... that's what the challenge was all about.


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

Four Pillars said:


> My family lives on $1,000 per month (each). It's not that hard.


Hey with 5 of us = $5000, we're not that far. If we took out school tuitions, and childcare, we'd be in there.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

We do $3500/mo each after tax. Where is the prize?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

"Frugal living.".and such...ya right!

Interesting challenge..he claims to have spent $6000 for christmas and vacation" typically spends $4000 a month (so apparently) he has some "professional income" from somewhere. So now he is setting up a goal to live on $1000 a month for the* month of February* (28 days)..if you can believe his video blog.

Now there are a LOT of seniors living on just that for 12 months of the year, so that is no big deal on his part.
He claims to need $550 a month for expenses and that leaves him $450 for 4 weeks or $110 a week for food and
incidents...doable for a single guy.

* Now...Here's my sad story as a disabled senior living off a company pension for which the company is now defunct.*

I'm forced to live even more frugally this year, since Nortel, my employer of 25 years went bankrupt in 2009, screwed me out of roughly $30K of my "golden handshake" monthly payments, but ok..they did tell me those monthly payments
were paid out of their general revenues, so there were no guarantees from the start..
and as of January 2009, those payments STOPPED without any warning and my gross income went down by $6,000.

Ok, that was my descretionary spending, so I started to save like mad in a TFSA as much as I could last year. 
Now this year, I'm getting another double whammy..*my pensioner benefits, drug/dental/life insurance ceased on
December 31st 2010,* and now because of severe pension fund shortfall (36%) with Nortel not around to top up the pension fund, the pension fund has been placed with a receiver-trustee to wind it up this year.

In the meantime, because it's not sustainable at the current rate of monthly pension payouts to all the current pensioners, they are *going to cut the pension further by as much as 36%...*so now I will be getting closer to that $1000 a month net income..as I am still paying perpetual alimony to my remarried and better off than me.. my ex-wife who sued me for everything I had,
and then some more... in divorce court in 1998 and then went after me again went after some more gold from my pension 
at the time of my retirement, even though the courts paid her off from my share of the marital home (free an clear) and because the lawyers (2 for her) and 3 for me (until I found a good one) dragged it out for 4 years! Because of that I had to pay her
$8300 interest on what I owed her from date of separation (1994) to date of divorce (1998!)
not to mention $24K in legal fees for the divorce and $30k to fight her from grabbing more from me at my retirement! 
..and $15K of her legal fees, because the judge decided that she won on 3 out of 5 issues in court and I had to pay a portion
of her legal fees $15K...My cost $70K in legal fees+ $8300 in interest payable on the roughly $75K that I owed her in
equalization. My Nortel pension was actuarized and calculated into the equalization and that came out of my share of the
Marital home, which was free and clear at the time of divource. 

So now I'm still paying $300 a month ALIMONY from my pension and when my pension plan gets reduced to $1000 a month, I will have only $*700 of my pension to lifve off *and pay my monthly expenses (currently $600 for property taxes
and utilities) and that leaves me about $25 a week for food. 
I'M UNDER THE POVERTY LINE if my pension gets reduced by 36%, or wound up as an annuity..the other option. 
Annuity payments (approx $500 a month)
based on the remainder of the portion attributed to me on windup of the Nortel pension fund sometime this year.

So now I'm faced with a real challenge.. EITHER go back to court and modify the support
order (Lawyer estimates minimum $5k + HST) and on top of that I have to make her a LUMP SUM OFFER, (on top of what I've been paying her ($3600 a year automatically deducted from my pension) and if she doesn't accept that because of her greed, it will cost me even more than $5000.

or

Continue paying her alimony (tax deductible) and get the OAS/GIS and of course the $400 a year GIS increase that Mr. Harper was going to give me , that isn't going to happen now..not even HALF A LOAF! 

So I was severely screwed by the ex-wife and her new husband, the lawyers on both sides, the judgement, my health and now
my pension is next. 

So "Mr Student-facing-your-big-challenge".. living off $1000 for the month of February is no big deal..compared to my upcoming predicament.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Wow carver, that's terrible. I did not realize you were one of those disabled ex-Nortel people. I've been following the Nortel thing since the mid-1990s and my friend and I often bring up how badly you guys got screwed. The infuriating part about it is that nothing has really changed to prevent a recurrence of what happened to you, in some other company. I feel for you, I really do. You probably worked hard and put up with lots of BS in your working years, with the goal of a golden pension at the end of it all. I can't think of a worse situation than yours, plus add in the divorce, yikes. Now I understand better where you are coming from.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

I don't think knocking the guy is the right thing to do.

But I think buying cigarettes and making a $20 random donation is not frugal living. Neither is buying a $6 burrito.

Grafting soap and picking up a penny at the gas station at 1am because you get more gasoline at lower temperatures is frugal living.

I think he missed the point.

Oh, and FRUGAL people don't spend that much money on a gym membership if you're at the poverty line. You run outside around the block. You put books in your bag and strap it to your back. You do pushups. You jump rope.


----------



## CanadianCapitalist (Mar 31, 2009)

Maybe because I'm an engineer and an Ottawa resident, the way Nortel disabled are being treated makes my blood boil. What's even more disgusting is the same thing happened in past bankruptcies: companies self-funded their disability insurance, went bankrupt and disabled ex-employees saw their benefits evaporate. How many times should this happen before the Government wakes up?


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

CanadianCapitalist said:


> Maybe because I'm an engineer and an Ottawa resident, the way Nortel disabled are being treated makes my blood boil. What's even more disgusting is the same thing happened in past bankruptcies: companies self-funded their disability insurance, went bankrupt and disabled ex-employees saw their benefits evaporate. How many times should this happen before the Government wakes up?


I wasn't intending to drag everyone here into a political discussion, goodness knows we've seen enough of what goes on Parliament Hill these days, but when it comes to our current "self interest" federal and provincial gov'ts,
they are more interested in their own "hidden" agendas these days and infighting, rather than concentrate on what is needed by a lot of people who are just scraping by these days.

$1000 a month even after taxes, as is mentioned in the OP, is *well below the poverty line*.
The provincial gov't seems to recognize this by allowing those with $20K or less of taxable income not to have
to pay the minimum $300 "OHIP tax" on their tax return. 

In fact today, even if the lowest tier tax rate is around 21% combined fed/provincial, the seniors and disabled are paying 
MORE than their fair share of taxes, yet being disadvantaged by further increase in taxes on home heating
and energy that further erodes what little they have to live on.

True, they can get some relief the quarterly GST rebates from the Feds ...and starting in 2011, a seniors home energy /property tax "grant" or rebate, (if you want to call it that) , but even with these little conconcessions, the gov'ts are not doing enough to help those in the lowest tax brackets. 
The cost of maintaining a home is rising steadily each year due to increased property taxes and energy costs.

I feel very sorry for those who are struggling on just OAS and GIS whicht tapers off very quickly once your taxable income is above $12,000 per year. This formula was set a few years ago, obviously has not been changed by the Federal gov't to recognize
how much costs have gone up since 2000.

CURRENT BANKRUPTCY LAWS favors only investors/lenders, and not the people who actually built the company from
their sweat equity. I spent many sleepless nights working on problems to help out the customers of the company
for 25 years, never expecting that in my retirement years, things would come back to bite me on the "a*s" when now I'm unable
to do something about it. 

Some politicians recognized this and pressured the current gov't to raise the GIS ceiling by allocating around $700 million for the "poorest of the poor" , seniors living on just OAS/GIS, (maybe CPP too), but as Ralph Goodale kept re-iterating in his interviews.."jets, jails and further corporate tax cuts" was more important these days.. than the seniors living well below the poverty line.....and they were only willing to give them "half a loaf" (Ie: proposed new budget $300 M allocation to the GIS), which would work out to about $50 a month extra for those on OAS/GIS , rather than at least $100 a month to pay for all the extra increases in property taxes, home heating and energy. 

Nor, was the gov't willing to drop the HST on home heating, which has resulted in a big erosion to pensions this winter
due to introduction of the HST.. (around 8% increase or $120) on average $1500 per winter heating. 

And as far the current political scene, the current bankruptcy laws do not favor Nortel pensioners (or any other bankrupt company) these days to claim any assets of their former bankrupt employer.
Although a few months back, a private members bill was introduced , passed in the House of Commons, but then killed by the Senate, because the BIG BANKS and other "corporate citizens" looked at it and recommended that if such a bill would pass, it would spell doom to "capitalism in Canada"! 

So for pensioners who put in 25 years plus of their lives into a failed company, no financial relief is available to them, but for disgraced senators, (who were convicted of fraud), well they are *still entitled *to a $80,000 a year Federal gov't pension.

The McGinty gov't so far is not too eager to do anything either. While there is a provincial "Guaranteed Pension Fund" that was supposed to be set up to assist in such cases for ONTARIO PENSIONERS, Mr. McGinty and Dwight Duncan "more or less" admitted a few months ago that the Guaranteed Pension Fund was essentially "bankrupt". A case of mismanagement? or
lack of attention? 

The Nortel Defined Benefit pension fund was setup and contributed solely by the company. In profitable years, the company would set aside a portion of their earnings to put into the pension fund *which was registered in Ontario *(and elsewhere)..however...back a few years ago, the company started to "cook the books" and began the slow and steady decline, so that there were "no profits" realized., so they had "no funds" to top up the pension fund. 

*They approached the Provincial gov't and asked for a deferral on these contributions to the pension fund*, and was given rubber stamp approval by the provincial gov't....because the provincial gov't, like many others, thought that once Nortel returned to profitability, they would "make up" the shortfall. 

In other words..the Provincial govt, like many others thought... they were " just too big to fail"..so a few years went by with NO contributions to the pension fund. Then the recession hit, not as much growth in the investment market to improve
the shortfall in the pension fund, so now, 3 years later, the pension fund is severly underfunded by at least 36% and 
no longer sustainable for monthly pension payout , to those pensioners that qualify, in future years. 

Ok, businesses start up, flourish and sometimes fail..that is a fact of the modern economy,but this is one example of what can go wrong when TWO LEVELs of GOV'T don't pay attention to the plight of one set of people within their constistuencies. 

It certainly comes a rude awakening for those that are disabled and unable to work, living out their "not so golden years".


----------



## ghostryder (Apr 5, 2009)

carverman said:


> In fact today, even if the lowest tier tax rate is around 21% combined fed/provincial, the seniors and disabled are paying
> MORE than their fair share of taxes,




???

Low income seniors & disabled don't pay hardly any income tax. The first $19K or so of taxable income is tax free with just the basic exemption and either the age amount or the disabilty credit. And that's before any other non-refundable tax credits. A senior who actually qualifies for GIS wouldn't be paying any income tax at all. 


Though I agree that changes to bankruptcy law should be made. Employees who are owed money should be higher up on the hierarchy of creditors.


----------



## Jungle (Feb 17, 2010)

Wow we can not live on $1000 month. Maybe if the mortgage was paid off?. And it's just two of us.


----------



## Financial Cents (Jul 22, 2010)

Fixed expenses; including mortgage and property taxes, and variable expenses; including food, gas and bills, my wife and I are about $4,000.

I guess we lose.


----------



## andrewf (Mar 1, 2010)

KaeJS said:


> I don't think knocking the guy is the right thing to do.
> 
> But I think buying cigarettes and making a $20 random donation is not frugal living. Neither is buying a $6 burrito.
> 
> ...


The buying gas at night thing is just nuts. The fuel is stored underground, and there is probably no appreciable difference in temperature over a 24h period. Over a year is a different story.


----------



## bean438 (Jul 18, 2009)

Carver why does the ex get a yearly sum from the pension?

Pensions are given a commuted value and then split 50/50.

If she is re married you shouldnt pay alimony.

Last man standing holds the bag??

If you came into a lot of cash, new job, lottery winnings she would be able to petition for more "support" so if her lifestyle has changed for the better then your obligation should be diminished.

Spend the money and fight it.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ghostryder said:


> ???
> 
> Low income seniors & disabled don't pay hardly any income tax. *The first $19K or so of taxable income is tax free with just the basic exemption and either the age amount or the disabilty credit. *And that's before any other non-refundable tax credits. A senior who actually qualifies for GIS wouldn't be paying any income tax at all.
> 
> ...


So you are a tax expert? 
Where in the 2010 tax guide does it say that the first $19K is tax free for seniors on pension or disability? 

A senior will get a T4A from the Federal gov't for the CPP/OAS received and you have to claim that on your tax form as TAXABLE INCOME.
(OAS is a T4A and is declared on line 113 of the RETURN. CPP is a T4A and is declared on line 114. I don't know how
the GIS works, because I don't qualify for it),

The personal exemptions become NON REFUNDABLE TAX CREDITS, Basic personal amount $10,382 the only other *basic *credit is the AGE AMOUNT (max $6446) + PENSION INCOME AMOUNT (MAX $2000)

SO IF YOU ADD UP ALL THE (basic) CREDITS (assuming no medical or other caregiver, etc expenses),
that equals $18,828 in tax credits..and this is not a dollar for dollar "gift" from the Feds or Provincial gov'ts.

Then take that $18,828 tax credit , and on the Fed Tax worksheet multiply that (line 19) by 15 % (lowest tier tax rate) and get $2,824.20 + any charitable donations ..but even that is not dollar for dollar, as you have to follow their silly number crunching
formula....

"Enter your total eligible amount of charitable donations and gov't gifts
OR 75% of the amount on line 236 (net income) of your return ."

Then CRA instructs you to enter $200 or the amount on line 340,WHICHEVER IS LESS, subtract that from line 340 and end up
with a smaller result that is crunched by 15% ($200 or the amount on line 340 whichever is less) and add that to the $2,824.20
of non-refundable tax credits, WHICH THEN can THEN FINALY be subtracted from
your TOTAL TAX PAYABLE on yur pension income.

*The lowest FED tax rate on ALL INCOME is 15%*

The Provincial worksheet is similar, but in 2010, the provincial gov't
reduced only the lowest tier tax rate from 6.05% to* 5.05%..*but the pensioner STILL has to pay tax on ALL PENSION INCOME *MINUS* any Ont non-refundable tax credits.

So basically, if you have say..$12,000 of taxable income, you don't have to pay any OHIP premium, because you are under the $20K threshold....and with the tax credits, granted you won't be paying as much tax on the $12,000 of taxable income because of the FED + PROV tax credits...

BUT you still have to pay some income tax on the remaining amount *minus the tax credits.*


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Jungle said:


> Wow we can not live on $1000 month. Maybe if the mortgage was paid off?. And it's just two of us.


My mortgage is paid off..thankfully, but I had to cash in my RRSPs before retirement to pay it off. 
Reason was two-fold..because of INDEFINITE support ordered by the courts ($1000 a month while I was working) and
then reduced to $300 a month INDEFINITE, when I was pensioned. 
I didn't want my RRSPs to be considered as income by the courts to increase the amount of support payable after my retirement 
and I didn't want a mortgage hanging over my head on my after divorce house in my retirement years.

However, with property taxes steadily rising every year + heating/electricity costs going up + property insurance and maintenance on my property, my monthly living expenses (housing only) is around $600 a month right now.

So $1000 a month living as a single with no other source of income, that would leave me only $400 to live on, and pay my other expenses, not just food.. it would not be enough to live on on a long term basis IF I had to depend on the Federal CPP/OAS pensions alone.

The GIS unfortunately is set up for the poorest of the poor retirees..and is a sliding scale of reduced payouts with a maximum income threshold of $14,959, at which the GIS they pay you is only $1.00 per month!


So lets say you are a senior that does not qualify for CPP because you have never paid into CPP...you only get OAS/GIS and maybe the additional supplement. for a combined income from the gov't ....(and no other income source)...
of $1191.50 per month ($14,298 per year).

You would still have to pay SOME TAX on that amount, after the Fed/Provincial tax credits are deducted..
but not much as you are basically at the poverty level ..

and dog/cat food could be considered a food item on your table.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

bean438 said:


> Carver why does the ex get a yearly sum from the pension?


Because at the time of divorce, the judge acknowledged that it was a traditional 22.5 year marriage, and because the ex was a caregiver for some of that time looking after our 2 children, she was financially disavantaged for the years she stayed at home looking after the children, while I my earnings increased, thereby "penalizing" her in her retirement years.

So when the divorce case was over, the judge split the assets 50/50 and since her actuarized company pension was much lower than mine at the time, therefore I owed here several thousand of equalization in regards to my actuarized pension being valued at a greater sum than hers.
That difference came out of my share of the marital home, which was free and clear of mortgage at the time.

Besides the equalization + 4 years of interest on roughly $70K that I owed her, the judge equalized the RRSPs, so I had to roll over $22,000 from my RRSP into hers.



> Pensions are given a commuted value and then split 50/50.


Apparently that is not the way it works in DIVORCE COURTS. The two pensions are actuarized, commuted and 
the partner with the highest number pays the difference to the partner with the lowest number.

So in my case, my Nortel pension was valued around $50k in 1998. It was done by an actuary (I paid $500 for that), so I had no input on any number they arrived at.. in any case, she had to do the same to her smaller pension ..valued at around $10,000 at the time.

The judge decided that because of the length of the marriage, $50,000 (mine) + $10,000 (hers) = $60,000 combined up to the date of separation, so she was entitled to $30,000 of pension same as me, so I had to pay her $20,000 from my pension..which came out of my half of the proceeds of the sale of the maritial home.

Does that make sense to you? 



> If she is re married you shouldnt pay alimony.


Well that's what I thought too. However the Ontario Superior court judge saw it differently. Because I was still working at Nortel at the time of divorce in 1998, I was ordered by the court to pay $1000 to the ex (tax relief for me)a nd $1100 to my daughter at the time , who was still attending nursing college.... for a total of $2100 a month, until the child finished her school. 
There was no tax relief for the child support at that time. 

Because the support was setup as INDEFINITE ( and my only recourse now is to go back to court each time (with substantial legal fees incurred) and beg for a reduction in support. Because the support order is setup as indefinite, I have to pay support until my death or a *material change in circumstance *(financial) which qualifies as a reason, for me to go back to court to amend (or eliminate) the standing support order. 

Now here's the nasty part of Canada's divorce courts/rulings:
BECAUSE there is an enforced INDEFINITE support order for my ex, the court stated that it doesn't matter if she remarries or not, her disavantaged financial position during the 22 years of marriage, during the time she had to stay home to look after the children (when they were too young to attend school) , financially disadvantaged her for her retirement years, while
my (Nortel) pension had growth in the meantime, and hers did not.

So, at the time of my retirment, another court battle ensued between my ex and me. 
She insisted on financial discovery of all my assets to ensure that I wasn't hiding anything. 
As well I had to have my Nortel pension RE-ACTUARIZED AGAIN, because there was some
growth in my pension between the time of divorce 1998 and the time of my retirement 2003,
WHICH WAS NOT EQUALIZED AT TIME OF DIVORCE,

Ie: The growth realized was above and beyond the EARLIER EQUALIZATION of my pension, which occurred in 1998 AT TIME OF DIVORCE, so there was difference and that difference court considered in the continuing support, although part of
it was a transistional retirment benefit, that was never guaranteed by Nortel, and stopped immediately after they went
bankrupt, reducing my pension income by over $6K a year. 

Because the Ontario SUPERIOR court judge saw that increase in my monthly pension payouts, the difference was considered as RETIREMENT INCOME , so even though the judge reduced the support by $700 a month, I still have to pay her $300 a month.
(The CPP was equalized at time of divorce).

Now with the Nortel pension plan being wound up this year, at the point that happens, I will have another "material change in circumstance" to go back to court to ...either reduce the support payments or eliminate them all together..but first as my lawyer advised me..I have to try to strike a settlement deal outside of court..by offering her yet another tax free LUMP
SUM, in lieu of INDEFINITE support payments.



> Last man standing holds the bag??


Absolutely!!! emphasis on MAN. Had the shoe been on the other foot, the courts probably would be more sympathic.....
..(as my 3rd lawyer mentioned me at the time of divorce)... THIS IS NOT A GOOD TIME (ERA) TO GET MARRIED without a marriage agreement.
Where was he to advise me of this 25 years earlier, when I was young and naive and stupid!

QUOTE
If you came into a lot of cash, new job, lottery winnings she would be able to petition for more "support" so if her lifestyle has changed for the better then your obligation should be diminished.

Spend the money and fight it.[/QUOTE]

Well, I wish that would be that easy.. with the court decisions these days you never know. 
I dont buy lottery tickets for that very reason, plus on my decreasing pension, all the money has to go towards my living expenses and any possible savings.

If she did find out, that I came across a sum of money, she could go back to court and petition the court for an increase
in her alimony support , as the lottery winnings or large sum of cash (inheritance) *would be a material change in circumstance *for me , and that would be a valid reason for her to go after me (again).

As far as her lifestyle changing for the better, I would not have any recourse under the current support order, because that
is yet another set of circumstances for the courts to consider (outside of my current support order) and would have to be another completely separate case. 
So that would not allow me to go in on a motion to modify the current support order, if there are new material circumstances for her.

As I mentioned above,
I only have ONE recourse in my case, the way the divorce order was written, and that is a* material change in circumstance*for me, which would be a reduction in my pension income.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

I wonder if there are any legal strategies that I as a guy in my 20s who might get married some day can take that will prevent a court from being able to take half of my stuff and give it to my wife if I divorce? For example saving money in an account outside of Canada? If I get married, all the money I had at that time is 100% mine after a divorce, correct? Or is there any way a court can decide that even some of that money has to go to my ex? How would they even know how much money I had at the time of marriage, who would record that? I know the easy answer is to get a prenup but I really think that is a bad way to start a marriage.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Sherlock said:


> I wonder if there are any legal strategies that I as a guy in my 20s who might get married some day can take that will prevent a court from being able to take half of my stuff and give it to my wife if I divorce?


Without a pre-nupt (and ONE SHOULDN'T REALLY GET MARRIED WITHOUT ONE!),
the longer you are married, the more of your assets accrued EITHER at the beginning or inside the marriage you
will have to share with your ex..AFAIK. 

This is even more true if the wife or samesex partner, (who may have been working before the marriage and has
no financial assets of her own at that time) is financially disadvantaged or based on his/her age (as in my case) ,
and doesn't have the training or years left to earn a lucrative living/contribute to a private pension etc.




> For example saving money in an account outside of Canada?


I'm not a financial expert or a lawyer..so this is strictly my opinion for what it's worth.

Divorce cases will force you to disclose all your finances in a investigation by her lawyer to uncover any "hidden assets" you may not have disclosed in your financial statement to the courts. If the ex's lawyer is successful, (and some are very sharp at uncovering savings/transfers of money to foreign accounts), then you are at YOUR OWN PERIL, as the opposing lawyer can get a court order for you to produce it withing X hours or days...and you better hustle then..otherwise you will get hit with contempt
..or lose badly during distribution of the your/common assets of the marriage. 

If you refuse, they will probably cite you with "contempt of court" and that will result in additional financial penalties imposed on you.
In othr words, if there is a paper trail and you can't explain where the money is being spent to the lawyer's/courts satisfaction, then they will assume you are covering up the true situation of your assets.



> If I get married, all the money I had at that time is 100% mine after a divorce, correct?


Well, I'm not a lawyer to advise you, but in my opinion (based on my experience with divorce lawyers)..unless you have a pre-nupt drawn up that you and your wife- to- be will sign in the presence of a lawyer SPECIFICALLY
EXCLUDING that money from her IN CASE OF SEPARATION/DIVORCE..
you are SOL as far as keeping 50% of that money in divorce court AFAIK. 



> Or is there any way a court can decide that even some of that money has to go to my ex?


Again, you would need to consult a lawyer for legal advice, but in my layman's opinion, the court (depending on how disadvantaged financially your ex is), CAN order support payments based on your income ....and any assets deemed to
be _income producing over a long term_..so any money that you may have stashed away in a foreign account..if there is a paper trail, then I wouldn't want to bet on it either.




> How would they even know how much money I had at the time of marriage, who would record that?


Again, I'm not a lawyer..just speaking from a LOT of experience with divorce court and lawyers. 

IF your ex suspects that you have hidden assets stashed away, and it becomes a bitter financial situation, your ex's lawyer can start FINANCIAL DISCOVERY of your assets, *before and after marriage *and right up to the
day of divorce AFAIK. (as far as I know).

THis means that IF the ex's lawyer wants to grill you, they will send you a list of documents they want you to produce based on your filed Financial Record with the COURTS. 
These are referred to as "undertakings" for you and your lawyer to produce, and give to the ex's lawyer usually before they
grill you during financial DISCOVERY. 

This is a very _intense session _ where you would not want to be without a lawyer..because EVERYTHING
you and your lawyer say is RECORDED to be produced in court as evidence, in case they find you "in contempt". 
Don't forget by the time you are subjected to financial discovery, you have filed SWORN DOCUMENTS with the
court about your financial position..so if they uncover anything out of the ordinary in an attempt to deliberately
hide assets from your ex and the courts..YOU DO AT YOUR OWN PERIL!




> I know the easy answer is to get a prenup but I really think that is a bad way to start a marriage.


Well that's your decision and lets hope that your marriage will last until death do you part..as they say. 
Battles in divorce court over support and assets can be very costly to you. 
If you lose, the court will also order you to pay your ex's legal costs besides your own.


----------



## bean438 (Jul 18, 2009)

WOw, caverman your situation is brutal.

If the woman remarries she gets NO support what so ever. No judge will tell me otherwise.

Should something "happen" to her I dont pay.

If it were me I would beat the living **** out of her and her new hubby.

Try collecting support from me while I live rent free courtesy of corrections canada.


----------



## GeniusBoy27 (Jun 11, 2010)

Even with a pre-nupt, any income or assets accrued post-marriage is split 50/50 in Ontario (each province is different).

That's why when I got married, the difference of $250,000 or so in our assets, really doesn't add up and make it worthwhile to do a pre-nupt.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

bean438 said:


> WOw, caverman your situation is brutal.


*Thank you for acknowledging how "fair" divorce courts can be in Ontario.*

Everyone advised me initially, to fight her in court, after she filed for $2500 a month support for herself/boyfriend and $1500 for my daughter still in school AND oh yes, she would take a $100,000 LUMP SUM to buy that fancy retreat she and her
husband now live in. 

I fought as hard as I could but the female judge... (her lawyer stalled the divorce case until the "right judge" was sitting in sessions for obvious reasons) was available, and of course my lawyer "f"ed up and she slapped me for not having the financial statement submitted t o the court within the prescribed time..as if it was MY fault?
That's what the lawyer was supposed to do! The first day of a 3 day trial..my lawyer looks at the judge and then
whispers in my ear.. "uh oh"..this is a PRO WOMAN JUDGE!".
Thanks! I needed to hear that..and his premonition proved to be right!



> If the woman remarries she gets NO support what so ever. No judge will tell me otherwise.


Well good luck there! ..if you have a secure job and assets..and she files for support,..chances are she may get some support regardless of whether she marries later or not..as in my case. But she has to prove that before divorce and file (fudged financial
papers) that she is disavantaged financially by the years of the marriage. 

The wording of my sentence "divorce judgement against me read something to the effect ..
"that the wife was at a financial disadvantage after spending several years of her working life look after MY children (I guess that implied that they were ONLY mine and not hers?) and because of her financial disadvantage she is entitled to INDEFINITE SUPPORT, and even if she decides to remarry in the future, that will have no bearing on the support that she is entitled
to"


The judge who tried the case *after my retirement*, took this divorce judgement into account, and because of my pension entitlement/ growth AFTER divorce he did reduce it to $300 from $1000. (That 6 month of legal wrangling, financial investigations,
3 or 4 court appearances to argue the facts and then one more court appearance on costs..who should pay the legal costs.
Mine at that point (due to firing the first 2 lawyers for sloppy handling of my case and hiring the 3rd one who had to start
from scratch, cost me $30K! Hers (same shark as in the divorce) was around $20K. The judge decided that since both
of us were "unco-operative" during the pre trial sessions and trying to reach a settlement, to "split the costs equally between
both parties"..so I ended up paying myt costs and she ended up paying her own this time. 

Now she is living better than me even though she and her new husband (#3) are both retired.



> Should something "happen" to her I dont pay.


Well in my case, the only thing that could happen is if she dies first, then I still have to go back to court because if I don't pay they (Family Support Office) will come after me for the arrears and confiscate my driving license, and passport while they contemplate what needs to be done through the courts.




> If it were me I would beat the living **** out of her and her new hubby.


Thats assault and after that once the courts got through with me, not only would I be spending time in jail in my poor health years, but she would sue me for anything financial that I may still have.. the victim of a crime provision under law that allows the victim to sue the perpretrator .



> Try collecting support from me while I live rent free courtesy of corrections canada.


 You have a point there..but do you want to spend several years behind bars for doing the crime just because you refused to pay some of Mr. Harper's inflated money for support and never see the light of day for many years?

It's only money after all..you come into this world with nothing and you leave this world with nothing..everything else is temporary..including the money that the gov't prints up and then takes it back.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

bean438 said:


> should something "happen" to her i dont pay.
> 
> If it were me i would beat the living **** out of her and her new hubby.
> 
> Try collecting support from me while i live rent free courtesy of corrections canada.


wtf?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

Yes the whole situation in Ontario is based upon need. they start by dividing all the family property according to how long you have been married. I gave up 46% of my DB pension and half all our assets acquired during marriage, then the court awarded her support based upon need. And for the last five years, the support payments were made out of my retirement income so she was getting her 46% plus another 26% of my pension, leaving me with 28%!

She still gets her medical and dental benefits from me, while I also pay for my current wife.

BTW a Prenup will not protect you from an court award based on need.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

OK bean the jig's up in winnipeg.

which one were you ?




*Man, 87, injured in senior's home fight*

CBC News 

A fight between two seniors in a Winnipeg care home resulted in one man being sent to hospital in critical condition and another facing a charge of aggravated assault, police said.

The injured man, 87, suffered a head injury when he was knocked to the floor, police said in a news release Saturday.

Officers were sent to the facility, in the 400 block of Edmonton Street, around 10:20 p.m. CT on Thursday.

Police said they learned that two residents, aged 70 and 87, were in an activity room when an argument broke out.

"It is alleged that the 70-year-old male physically assaulted the 87-year-old male .... causing him to fall backwards, subsequently striking his head on the floor," police said.

The injured man was taken to hospital "in critical condition," police said.

Police said they arrested the 70-year-old man on Friday and charged him with aggravated assault. He was in custody at the Provincial Remand Centre, pending his first court appearance.


----------



## bean438 (Jul 18, 2009)

I am a few years away from a care home.

Actually the 70 was charged a few months ago. He suffers from Alzheimer's disease, and smacked his wife. He was still at home waiting for a care home placement. She phoned the cops and they threw him in jail. The family was upset he was arrested. 

You call the cops and they arrest people. Dont ***** when they do their job.

If he was in a secure ward I think arresting this guy a second time is crazy.

This guy is losing his mind and gets arrested and yet 2 "youts" beat a guy to death with a bat and get 2 days in jail.

What a country we live in.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

kcowan said:


> Court awarded her support based upon need. *And for the last five years, the support payments were made out of my retirement income so she was getting her 46% plus another 26% of my pension, leaving me with 28%!*She still gets her medical and dental benefits from me, while I also pay for my current wife.


Yup I hear ya..good ole Ontario. The SCC (supreme court) passed a law about "double dipping" a few years ago..(another divorce case)..so I thought ..Yea!, upon my retirement, she can't go after support from my DB pension..but alas...
unfortunately for me..she did, and she still got some support, even though my DB pension was equalized by a lump sum payment to her at time of divorce. However, greed prevails these days..and in her deposition to the court, she mentioned " I want what I'm entitled to under the law"....so the court decided she was still disadvantaged even if remarried and that I should continue paying from my pension..as that was not considered double dipping because of my pension growth.

These kinds of decisions can drive one crazy and contemplate finding a gun.. and....well..you can guess the rest. 
I don't mind paying my fair share of taxes and paying for a mistake I made many years ago when I was young and
stupid..but enough is enough. 

Now this isn't all...she argued that because she was entitled to $300 a month INDEFINITELY, she was also entitled to
my life insurance as irrevocable beneficiary, even though she is an beneficiary of her current spouses life insurance. 
So the judge granted her $50.000 of my life insurance as "final payment to her", in case I croak and not around
to pay her support until she croaks.

Now..the piece de resistance..not content waiting for me to croak, she wanted the judge to put a lien on my house (bought after divorce) so that if I sold it, or my executor disposed of it..she could collect another $50K through the lien rather than have
to wait a few more years..but the judge decided that since I had a life insurance policy as part of my pension
benefits, it wasn't necessary to proceed with a lien.




> BTW a Prenup will not protect you from an court award based on need.


yes that is true. It only protects some property that you may possess before the marriage and even there..they can always try to get more. Judges can over rule prenupts in special cases.


----------



## bbsj (Aug 26, 2010)

kcowan said:


> Yes the whole situation in Ontario is based upon need. they start by dividing all the family property according to how long you have been married. I gave up 46% of my DB pension and half all our assets acquired during marriage, then the court awarded her support based upon need. And for the last five years, the support payments were made out of my retirement income so she was getting her 46% plus another 26% of my pension, leaving me with 28%!
> 
> She still gets her medical and dental benefits from me, while I also pay for my current wife.
> 
> BTW a Prenup will not protect you from an court award based on need.


This situation has become ridiculous in some provinces in Canada and several American states. Basically, they have made leeching/bloodsucking legal. However, there are few bright spots like Florida, where the division of the property is similar to everywhere else, but alimony is limited to three years.

Knowing little bit about you from the internet sites, I have admiration for the level of your balance in life. Most men would have gone nuts under such circumstances.


----------



## nathan79 (Feb 21, 2011)

It's possible... In fact, I often spend slightly under that amount in a month.

Admittedly, there's no way I could do it alone, especially in BC; but it's certainly doable when you have others to split the cost with. 

I generally avoid spending for luxuries (stuff like smartphones, daily Starbucks lattes, car payments, ipads, etc). I drive an older car with basic insurance, do my own maintenance and repairs, and don't make many large purchases.

Rent (shared; includes cable/internet/hydro): $420
Car Insurance: $90
Gas: $100
Food/Entertainment: $250
Medical: $60
Miscellaneous (car maintenance, prepaid cell phone, etc): $50-$100


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

carverman said:


> ...Well in my case, the only thing that could happen is if she dies first, then I still have to go back to court because if I don't pay they (Family Support Office) will come after me for the arrears and confiscate my driving license, and passport while they contemplate what needs to be done through the courts...


Is this really true? I trust it must be since you seem to understand the details of your divorce order thoroughly, but I'm astounded that you can't just stop paying if she dies first.

Your situation is absolutely appalling and reminds me of one of my pet peeves. I assume that every fair-minded person agrees that women used to be treated extremely unfairly in cases of divorce, but I believe that the pendulum has swung far too much the other way in the last couple of decades. And you seem to have been treated even more harshly than is usual these days. Your judge seems to have felt that you have a life-long obligation to keep your ex-wife living in comfort for the rest of her days, no matter what happens to your own standard of living. I think divorce settlements should be made as of the time of the divorce and they should be final. Any unfairnesses (such as different pension evaluations) should be taken care of by an unequal split of assets, and that should be the end of it, leaving both partners knowing where they stand for the rest of their lives. A divorce should mean the end of all obligations to each other forever - not to underage children, of course, but to the spouse.

Another thing that I think is wrong with divorce laws is that the judge can order parents to pay for university expenses. Parents in an intact marriage are not obligated to pay for their children' schooling - why should divorced parents be? I would have gladly helped my children if they had chosen to pursue higher education, but it would have been my choice, not a legal obligation.

Edited to add:

By the way, your ex-wife sounds like a very nasty, selfish, and vindictive woman, and I'm sure you're well rid of her, no matter what the cost!


----------



## ghostryder (Apr 5, 2009)

carverman said:


> So you are a tax expert?
> Where in the 2010 tax guide does it say that the first $19K is tax free for seniors on pension or disability?




Simple. If you have $19,000 in non-refundable tax credits and you have $19,000 in taxable income your tax payable is *ZERO*.

Doesn't matter whether you are senior, a student (with tuition & education credits) or a single parent claiming the "equivalent to spouse" amount for your child.

The sum total of all your NRTC's = the amount of income you can have that is not taxed because your credits wipe out your tax payable on that income. You only pay tax on the income over and above the amount of your NRTC's.

People often refer to the lowest tax bracket as "15%" but it is not. That is the second lowest. Effectively the lowest bracket is 0%. 

From $0 to the sum total of your NRTC's = zero tax, so 0%

Sum total of your NRTC's to $41,544 = 15% (Federal)
$41,544 to $83,800 = 22%
etc etc





carverman said:


> So basically, if you have say..$12,000 of taxable income, you don't have to pay any OHIP premium, because you are under the $20K threshold....and with the tax credits, granted you won't be paying as much tax on the $12,000 of taxable income because of the FED + PROV tax credits...



If you only have $12k in taxable income and have $18K in NRTC's you're not paying any federal income tax. And if you have at least $12k in provincial NRTC's you're not paying any provincial income tax either.


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

I don't understand how any self respecting woman can claim that they are both emancipated and also leech off of someone they no longer want to be with and expect that person to support them for life. 

It just seems to me that either women are equal or not. 

It's an alarming prejudice against women. 

Sure go was 50/50 of whatever the couple built together but you can't have your cake and eat it too, if you don't want to be with that person anymore, you don't get money either. Go get a damn job. 

The alternative is indentured servitude for the other partner. 

Kids are a different story, if you have kids you are responsible for them until they are grown, once they are grown they can go get a damn job too. 

As for the $1000 a month guy... there are people all over this country that manage to survive on social services which is currently $567 per month for a single person.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> Is this really true? I trust it must be since you seem to understand the details of your divorce order thoroughly, but I'm astounded that you can't just stop paying if she dies first.


No it's not quite as simple as that. The support order is enforced through
automatic deductions throught the FSO (now called the the FRO (Family
Responsibility Office..a division of the Ontario Attorney General.

The deductions are taken from my pension by the FRO (as a garnishment
I think) and then deposited in her bank acct. While this "convenience"
removes me from the picture and I don't have to deal with her or her husband
directly by sending payments, there is absolutely no communications with
her for several years now. (We had a bit of an argument outside the courtroom
door after the last episode, so I don't deal with her directly anymore, so the
only way I could find out that she has passed on is from my daughter.)

In order to stop automatic deductions, *I have to inform the FRO in writing
and she has to inform the FRO in writing * that we BOTH mutually agree
to stop, or have a lawyer , or the court file documents to change or stop the payments.

If she should expire, depending on when I find out, several payments could
have been deposited..I doubt very much that I would every recover those
deposits, especially if her husband gets automatic access to her accounts
and continues to use the deposits. That would be fraud, but then that would
require more court action..and so on.





> Your situation is absolutely appalling and reminds me of one of my pet peeves. I assume that every fair-minded person agrees that women used to be treated extremely unfairly in cases of divorce, but I believe that the pendulum has swung far too much the other way in the last couple of decades.


Interesting that you mention about the pendulum as far as tendency in
the courts to grant support based on false financial statements. She filed
a financial statement with the court as I did . In her financial statement
(even though she was still living in the marital home after the court kicked
me out), she was not paying the property taxes and the boyfriend/husband
was seen by the neighbors to be spending a lot of time there. Then she
decided to move out and rent the property to get extra money, while filing
interim financial statements that she was running a $1500 a month deficit 
to the court. She was working part time even then as a merchandiser for
Wrigley's (the gum people) and driving her own car and Wrigleys was paying
her a salary + car expenses.



> And you seem to have been treated even more harshly than is usual these days.


Harshly?..I'm used to it..but the old "milk cow " is now longer producing and
the upkeep (pension) is drying up in the next few months when the
receiver/trustee winds up the DB (defined benefit) pension plan because
the company is no longer around to top up the huge shortfall. 



> Your judge seems to have felt that you have a life-long obligation to keep your ex-wife living in comfort for the rest of her days, no matter what happens to your own standard of living.


Well as mentioned there is a proviso in the divorce judgement that should I
encounter a "material change in circumstance", I can go back on a motion
and beg the court for a modification to the support order. This is the ONLY
way I can get any relief until I die as the support is INDEFINITE. 



> I think divorce settlements should be made as of the time of the divorce and they should be final. Any unfairnesses (such as different pension evaluations) should be taken care of by an unequal split of assets, and that should be the end of it, leaving both partners knowing where they stand for the rest of their lives.


Well that's what I thought. Support should not be indefinite but based on
means and the ability of the former spouse to become self sufficient in
time. She is quite self sufficient. Right after the divorce, she remarried
and lives in a nice rural property with her new husband who is retired
from a crown corporation on a good pension and she has a pension as
well from Wrigleys, and a RRSP that I provided for her that she probably
uses as a tax deduction for my current support. 



> A divorce should mean the end of all obligations to each other forever - not to underage children, of course, but to the spouse.


In a general sense yes, but it is up to the courts descretion to provide support, if the court thinks the circumstances warrant it . These circumstances can be : age and employability of the former spouse to
become self sufficient. I was 52 at time of divorce and she was 51.
I had a good fulltime job with prospects for a decent pension (at least back then) and she had a part-time position and a much smaller pension.

The court does not consider any co-habitation by the former spouses and
only deals with financial matters of each spouse and any disparity between
them at time of divorce. She had an interim support order right up to
the time of divorce, so she was definitely not penniless.



> Another thing that I think is wrong with divorce laws is that the judge can order parents to pay for university expenses. Parents in an intact marriage are not obligated to pay for their children' schooling - why should divorced parents be?


Because the Supreme court set the precedence for that and judges hearing
the cases just follow along with the guidelines. Although the divorce judge
indicated that the ex should "contribute something", not just me to my
daughter attending Humber College School of nursing in Toronto, I don't
believe she contributed a cent. 

Now the unfortunate thing here is that "something happened" there, and my daughter to this day will not discuss with me what happened, but she quit Humber abruptly without finishing her 3 year program and started living in Ottawa (in an apt) close to Algonquin College, where she had to START ALL OVER AGAIN, because the two colleges could and did not agree on the credits she had earned in the 2 years she attended Humber. 

I was FORCED by the judgement to comtinue to pay $1100 a month (no tax relief on child support) to continue making
payments for a further 3 years. and up until she graduated and found
employment at a Kingston hospital. 

Ok, I was angry for the wasted money,$24,000 approx and the scholarship
that I had paid into, but she was my daughter, so I'm not going to begrudge her support, and now that is water under the bridge as they say.
We have an excellent father daughter relationship and I see my grandkids occasionally too. 



> I would have gladly helped my children if they had chosen to pursue higher education, but it would have been my choice, not a legal obligation.


and so did I. I even helped my son as much as I could then with his post
secondary education at Ryerson College in Toronto..but at least he was
more self sufficient and the court did not impose support for him..otherwise
If I had to pay $2000 a month child support and $1000 spousal on a 
$5,000 a month salary + deductions and my living expenses..I would have
not survived financially back then. The lawyers informed me that the courts
can approve support up to 50% of my gross salary and even more in
special cases. 




> Edited to add:
> 
> By the way, your ex-wife sounds like a very nasty, selfish, and vindictive woman, and I'm sure you're well rid of her, no matter what the cost!


Yes, thank you. I am very glad to have gotten rid of her as she squandered my salary when we were living together and did not help out financially with any marital home expenses. After separation, she still had the key and access to our joint mailbox in a small town outside of Ottawa, where we had lived up to then. 
During the initial interim court hearing for support, she "stole" my mail, specifically my bank statments addressed to me personally,
so she could have some input to the court on what I was spending my salary on.
When I complained to my lawyer that this was "illegal" at the point of separation, he shrugged ,
and told me to change the bank accts and the mailbox, which I did. 

She actually photocopied my bank statements (which I never received),then used them as evidence in the courts to support her case. 
At first any correspondence by letter, (we never spoke to each other after separation),
she would photocopy and present to the court as evidence of her trying to "negotiate" with me. 
I was careful /civil what I said in my letters because I knew that some judge would be reading those.
I remember one line she wrote me in a letter.." I want what I'm entitled to under the law, and I won't go away until I get it"...


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ghostryder said:


> Simple. If you have $19,000 in non-refundable tax credits and you have $19,000 in taxable income your tax payable is *ZERO*.


Didn't know that..thank you! Nowhere in the guide does it actually say that though. 
So far my taxable income is well above the 19K, so I can't take advantage of that... at least not for this year. 

.


> The sum total of all your NRTC's = the amount of income you can have that is not taxed because your credits wipe out your tax payable on that income. You only pay tax on the income over and above the amount of your NRTC's.


Ok, I do my own tax return and so far have never had the opportunity to calculate and apply the NRTC to taxable income 
below 19K,,,but that may change soon with the windup this year of the former Nortel DB pension plan. 



> People often refer to the lowest tax bracket as "15%" but it is not. That is the second lowest. Effectively the lowest bracket is 0%.


Now isn't it funny that the Fed/Provincial worksheets do not have an additional set of boxes for taxable income under 20K?
The provincial worksheet (OHIP "Premium" owing) does indicate $0 premium payable (if taxable
income is 20k or less,) but that's about the only place they actually give you a clue. So one assumes then that
20K is now considered a poverty level. 




> From $0 to the sum total of your NRTC's = zero tax, so 0%
> Sum total of your NRTC's to $41,544 = 15% (Federal)
> $41,544 to $83,800 = 22%
> etc etc


Thanks..that will come in very handy for the 2011 tax return..or whenever, I get the final bad news about my DB pension.







> If you only have $12k in taxable income and have $18K in NRTC's you're not paying any federal income tax. And if you have at least $12k in provincial NRTC's you're not paying any provincial income tax either.


It's comforting to know then that at 12k taxable income, your basic + age deductions after the number crunching
provide some tax relief. The forms are so complicated that it's very hard to see where the personal deductions
are meaningful. Adding up all the deductions and then number crunching them by the effective tax rate is not very
helpful in the lowest tax brackets as every dollar counts even more at that point.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Berubeland said:


> I don't understand how any self respecting woman can claim that they are both emancipated and also leech off of someone they no longer want to be with and expect that person to support them for life.
> It just seems to me that either women are equal or not.


Thank you for that! My 22 marriage ended in failure because of financial reasons and nothing else. We were involved in the community and a church and both Choir members of that church, and I was active in Kiwanis. So basically on the surface
the marriage appeared to be normal. 

My ex had access to my bank accts and there was never enough left in there after my paycheck was deposited so I could buy lunch at work.
I had to brown bag it. The kids were older and in school, so looking after the kids was not the issue for her. She wanted to be a "business woman" and completely independent of me. She borrowed money from the bank and when things didnt work out quite her way, she used the joint bank acct to make the bank payments...yet saved her earnings in a separate bank acct that I had no access to.
I was paying all the bills and household expenses and I was convinced to buy her a used car..which paid for on my line of credit.

It got so bad that I just couldn't take it anymore and informed her that it can't go on like this..otherwise we would be bankrupt...thankfully at the time, I had just finished paying off the mortgage, but that just meant more money available
to be accessed by her. 

When I suggested that she should help out paying some of the bills with her earnings, she told me in no uncertain terms she was not about to do that, and stormed off in her car somewhere.. so that was the final straw.
I am a reasonable person, but a bad judge of moral character.. I didn't see it at first, but certainly saw it much later on ,
during the 22.5 years that the marriage lasted.


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Thank you carver for exposing the truth when it comes to divorce. I have known many men who have gone through divorce and these stories have done a good job of keeping me away from a wedding anytime soon.

And to the person who raised the point about equality for women -- in this case there is NO equality. The courts are CLEARLY stacked in FAVOUR of women. No matter how good your lawyer is, as a man you will always get screwed in divorce proceedings. The law gives preferential treatment to women. 

Maybe it's time men start lobbying for equality and fairness in divorce.


----------



## Sherlock (Apr 18, 2010)

I'm not sure if the courts are stacked in favor of women, so much as they are against the higher-earning member of the marriage. If the situation was reversed and his wife was the one earning more money and he was squandering it away and then after divorce he wanted alimony, wouldn't he get it based on the same reasons she got it?


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

Sorry you had a financially abusive wife carverman. I hope things work out in your favour and soon.

I recently had a conversation with one of my moms sisters. They are in their early 50's, kids are grown, one married and out of the house, the other rents the basement from them.

Their income last year combined (the apt is new so this probably does not account for rental income) was $35k. They pay $700/m mortgage plus ~$225/m property tax. I was ashamed to be worried about dropping from $100k/yr to $55k/yr after hearing how little they live on!

We have one young child, but still, there is no reason the three of us can not live on $55k/yr.


----------



## bean438 (Jul 18, 2009)

Berubeland said:


> I don't understand how any self respecting woman can claim that they are both emancipated and also leech off of someone they no longer want to be with and expect that person to support them for life.
> 
> It just seems to me that either women are equal or not.
> 
> ...


Nice post, I couldnt agree more.

I agree with child support, but I do think the almost 800 a month my friend is paying is too much, considering it didnt cost him any where near that much to raise the child himself.

Add to the fact that his ex remarried a doctor making HUGE coin. And now they expect him to pony up 1/2 the cost of equestrian (no pun intended seriously) , an activity he could not afford had the child live with him.

You cant blame he courts, slimey lawyers, and even more pathetic judges.

A good person should do the right thing.

Women get far too much in divorces.

Sure, if she never worked, raised the kids, and 40 years later is in her 60's, gets divorced you cant just dump her in the streets.

On the other hand if she is in her 40's, and re marries say a doctor making 250k + a year then the ex husband should not pay a dime for support.

If you think about it suppose I make 50k a year and am paying support, I am expected to pay her more if my financial situation changes. My income doubles then her support goes up.

So if she now earns 250k a year via her new doctor husband then she should pay me more "support" to equalize things out? Silly thing you say, but whats the difference?

Sorry if some of my comments about beating the **** out of the woman and her new husband offended anyone but that is my opinion.

Certainly I do not encourage this to take place, but at the same time there would be no sympathy what so ever.

As yee sow, so shall yee reap.

I think the reason there are so many deadbeat dads out there (yes there are deadbeat moms too but that would be sexist of me to bring that up) is that the courts have been so one sided.


----------



## KaeJS (Sep 28, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> No matter how good your lawyer is, as a man you will always get screwed in divorce proceedings. The law gives preferential treatment to women.
> 
> Maybe it's time men start lobbying for equality and fairness in divorce.


Bang!

And then women wonder why most men don't want to get married...


----------



## Jon_Snow (May 20, 2009)

Carverman, as a man who has been married for only a couple of years, your story gets my stomach churning a bit... awful story. 

As to the original thread topic, 2k per month is probably the best we are ever going to manage. We live quite well on 3k per month now... with the mortgage gone in a year, 2k will be our average. To get to $1000 a month would involve cancelling cable/internet, stop driving/insuring vehicle, eating cat food and stop enjoying occasional restaurant meals and a nice bottle of wine once and a while. Not worth it for us. You have to live a little bit.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> Thank you carver for exposing the truth when it comes to divorce. I have known many men who have gone through divorce and these stories have done a good job of keeping me away from a wedding anytime soon.
> 
> And to the person who raised the point about equality for women -- in this case there is NO equality. The courts are CLEARLY stacked in FAVOUR of women. No matter how good your lawyer is, as a man you will always get screwed in divorce proceedings. The law gives preferential treatment to women.
> 
> Maybe it's time men start lobbying for equality and fairness in divorce.


As you can tell from my earlier post, I completely agree that divorce courts are unfair to men, but it's not necessarily true to say that "as a man you will *always* get screwed in divorce proceedings." My ex-husband certainly did not, nor did I want him to. I offered to take the house (mortgage free and worth about $120,000 back in the early 1980s and which had been paid for almost entirely by me) as my only settlement and not to ask for a share of his investment portfolio, worth approximately $1 million. My lawyer was so horrified that she made me sign a release absolving her of any blame if I later decided I should have gone after his shares. I told her that as long as I had a roof over our heads, I could certainly look after our daughters on the salary I earned. I was awarded a very small child support payment ($100/month for each of our two girls), but I knew I'd never get it so there was no point counting on it. And sure enough, that's what happened - I got two payments and that was it. My lawyer was upset with me for not fighting for more, but I knew that whatever was awarded, I was going to have to fight for it every single month, and I didn't want this man in my life any more - that way he would have to have remained very much a part of it.

Did I get a bad deal? No, not in my opinion, and that's what counts. He was a mining promotor on the old Vancouver Stock Exchange; his shares were in his own junior mining companies, still in the property development stage. He was a terrible husband, but he had worked extremely hard to develop those companies. I knew myself well enough to know that if I took half his shares, I would want to sell them immediately which would have completely destroyed his market. As I told my lawyer, "I don't want to destroy him financially, I just don't want to be married to him any more." So we both walked away from the marriage with what we wanted; he got all his stock; I got the house and the sense of security that was so important to me for our daughters' sake.

My point is that not all women are after as much as they can get when their marriage breaks down. Many of us try hard to be fair and to leave a bad marriage with our dignity intact and a settlement that both parties can be satisfied with. My ex-husband's friend, a chartered accountant who had been divorced three times, advised him to "grab Karen's offer and run before she changes her mind." And he did.

So don't give up completely on marriage, TRM. Just make sure you pick a woman with integrity who is earning her own living when you meet her and not just looking for a man to pay her bills - easier said than done, perhaps!


----------



## the-royal-mail (Dec 11, 2009)

Thanks Karen, I have no doubt we're on the same wavelength here. Your post raises a good point about lawyers. I have no doubt in my mind that lawyers are really egging on these women, much as you describe, because without those lawyers how would the women really know what rewards await them? I have all sorts of stories that are just like carver's, so I won't repeat them here. But the sad thing is karen, that the integrity you mention almost always seems to go out the window when the woman decides she doesn't want to play ball anymore. Heck, the last friend who went through divorce...he even caught her cheating before the divorce, and it still didn't help. He had to give up his beautiful house and she buggered off overseas where his lawyer couldn't serve her papers for various issues. Ugh. I don't understand how the world manages to go around anymore. This just isn't worth having to give up half of everything I've worked for in addition to the heartache. 

Sorry for the incohesive reply but I think you know what I'm saying. This is a terrible, terrible situation for most men. Not all women handle it as well as you did. And we never know for sure how she will behave until it happens.


----------



## financialnoob (Feb 26, 2011)

Sherlock said:


> I'm not sure if the courts are stacked in favor of women, so much as they are against the higher-earning member of the marriage. If the situation was reversed and his wife was the one earning more money and he was squandering it away and then after divorce he wanted alimony, wouldn't he get it based on the same reasons she got it?


The cases of men receiving alimony are increasing. However, in the arena of child support and custody, the deck is still heavily stacked against fathers.

Most state courts used to presume that the child should go with the mother unless there was a significant reason not to. While most states have since abolished that presumption, the child is given to the mother in 80 to 90% of cases.

Furthermore, only 40% of custodial fathers receive child support payments compared to 57% of custodial mothers. 

There is a strong correlation of fathers with visitation rights paying child support. Fathers with visitation rights pay 80% of the time. That increases to 90% when there is joint custody. Yet a 1991 census showed almost half of fathers are denied court-ordered visitation.

And while deadbeat dads are talked about a lot for their 27% default rate, not much gets said about the deadbeat moms and their 47% default rate. This source is quite biased, but includes legit citations for all facts presented. 

As for the 27% that default, 66% of the non-payments are due to the inability to pay. These are either incarcerated or poor men who have been given unreasonably high child support payments for their income levels.

I'm not supporting deadbeat dads and I'm not saying women are at fault for divorce. I'm simply saying that legally, there is a certain bias against men. That is pretty obvious. We can talk all day about the way the world should be, but the numbers will tell you the way the world is, and it's not an easy one for men with children who are going through divorce.

The good news is by looking through all the facts above, they're gathered from two time periods because the data is hard to find. A lot of it stems from the early to mid 90s, and when compared to later data, you can see the gap closing. The 1991 data shows custodial fathers only receiving a support payment 29.6% of the time, while that has increased to 40% in another article from a few years ago. It's still a disparity, but it's getting better.

And with that, I think we can officially say this thread has been thread-jacked.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

the-royal-mail said:


> Thanks Karen, I have no doubt we're on the same wavelength here. Your post raises a good point about lawyers. I have no doubt in my mind that lawyers are really egging on these women, much as you describe, because without those lawyers how would the women really know what rewards await them? I have all sorts of stories that are just like carver's, so I won't repeat them here. But the sad thing is karen, that the integrity you mention almost always seems to go out the window when the woman decides she doesn't want to play ball anymore. Heck, the last friend who went through divorce...he even caught her cheating before the divorce, and it still didn't help. He had to give up his beautiful house and she buggered off overseas where his lawyer couldn't serve her papers for various issues. Ugh. I don't understand how the world manages to go around anymore. This just isn't worth having to give up half of everything I've worked for in addition to the heartache. This is why you often hear these stories in the news about men simply killing their wives or ex-wives as soon as they hear about possible divorce. Easier to take the 15 years in jail than be continually "raped" financially, have accounts frozen etc.
> 
> Sorry for the incohesive reply but I think you know what I'm saying. This is a terrible, terrible situation for most men. Not all women handle it as well as you did. And we never know for sure how she will behave until it happens.


You're so right about the lawyers - at least many lawyers. Mine was absolutely opposed to the way I wanted to do things. Besides pressuring me to ask for more than I thought was fair, she tried very hard to force me to counter-sue my ex after he filed for divorce. I was the one who wanted the divorce, and we separated for several months. Then I started seeing another man (whom I later married). At that point my ex sued for divorce on the grounds of adultery, which it technically was because I was still legally married. My lawyer, who knew that my ex had been having an affair for at least two years prior to our separation, advised that we must immediately launch a counter-suit. I asked, "Why?" She said, "Because otherwise it will go on the record as you being the one at fault." I said I just wanted it over as quickly and inexpensively as possible and I did not care who the paperwork showed was at fault - I knew within my own conscience who was the most to blame and that that was all that mattered to me. So she proceeded to carry out my instructions, but I'm sure she thought me the most uncooperative client she'd ever had.

In any case, my divorce went through within a few months at a cost to me of just over $2000 (in the early '80s). Can you imagine what it would have cost if I'd allowed her to talk me into following her recommendations? And how many more billing hours she would have spent on my file? Hmmm.

But, all that being said, keep in mind that I had a very good second marriage for 18years before my husband died. I married for a third time and had another incredibly wonderful marriage for four years until he died in 2009. So two very good marriages out of three isn't a bad record, is it - if one can't get it right the first time, which is obviously the preferred result!

All this is to encourage you not to rule out marriage for fear you'll get taken financially. Protect yourself as best you can by choosing a woman who is financially self-sufficient and whom a reasonable judge would consider capable of supporting herself should things not work out. I must admit that, if I were a man, I'd be wary of marrying a woman who has not shown herself capable of being self-supporting and who wants to be a stay-at-home housewife even after the children are well along in their schooling. Judges seem to put all the blame on the husband and not make a wife take any responsibility for not preparing herself for making a living.

My son-in-law had a bad experience with his divorce from his first wife. She had quit her job (without discussing it with him) days after they married because she said he made enough for all three of them to live comfortably (she had an 8-year-old son from another relationship.) My SIL wasn't too pleased, because they had originally planned that they would save her wages for a down-payment on a house. But he accepted her decision until her son was in junior high school and then he started urging her to look for a job. She absolutely refused, and it became a real bone of contention. Things went on that way for another five years and when divorce eventually happened, the judge said that, because he had "allowed" her not to work for a number of years, it was his responsibility to prepare her to be self-supporting. So besides paying her child support (which he was happy to do in spite of the fact that the boy's biological father was not paying a penny and never had), he also had to pay her alimony for two years to give her time to take some work-related training. He actually thought that was fair enough, but he got upset when two years later he was served with papers from her lawyer saying that she had been too upset at the divorce to do anything about schooling, and that she needed another two years of alimony. SIL, obviously had to spend more money on a lawyer (while her costs were being paid by Legal Aid), but the judge agreed with her, and SIL had to provide another two years alimony. Then, believe it or not, at the end of the next two years, she tried again, using the same argument! Fortunately for SIL, Legal Aid refused to fund her this time, so she backed down. Who knows what would have happened if it had gone to court once again.

Sorry, we have hijacked this thread - I guess we should have started a new one.


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

My wife grasped for everything whereas my current one is self-supporting. I was a lot smarter when I chose my second one. Plus I consider myself lucky in spite of the money. Many of my cohorts are still unhappily married to wife #1 because of the money. To me, lie is worth a lot more than the money.

Do I resent wife #1? Not because of the money but more because of her attitude. I offered her more but her lawyer negotiated less in a very hostile manner.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

ghostryder said:


> Doesn't matter whether you are senior, a student (with tuition & education credits) or a single parent claiming the "equivalent to spouse" amount for your child.
> 
> The sum total of all your NRTC's = the amount of income you can have that is not taxed because your credits wipe out your tax payable on that income. You only pay tax on the income over and above the amount of your NRTC's.
> 
> ...





I used 19K taxable income for a trial calculation using my 2010 return.
I'm quite interested in what you said in a previous post about not having to pay any income tax if you at what is considered poverty level these days.

So..here is my calculations based on only 19K of income and *only using the basic deductions allowed *(no medical/caregiver or charity donations)

*FEDeral*$19,000 x 15% rate = $2850, tax payable

NRTC
Basic personal exemption: $10,382.00
Age amount (65 in 2010): 6,446.00
Pension amount 2,000.00
----------------------------------------
$18,828.00 x 15% = $2824.20

Fed tax payable: $2850.00 minus $2824.20 = *** $35.80 
*** however with any other deductions, charity etc..this could be $0

*PROVincial tax*

property tax $2345.00 x 10% = $234.50
age amount (65 or older) $425.00
---------------------------------------------
NRTC $659.51

Basic personal deduction $8943.00
Age amount (65 or older) $4366.00
Pension amount $1237.00
-------------------------------------
$14,546.00 x 5.05% = $734.57 (NRTC)

ONT tax payable on $19,000 x 5.05% = $1045.00 minus $734.57 
leaves $310.43 still payable at this point BUT...

then you do the Ontario Tax Reduction calculation $296.00 x 2 = $412.00
subtract that from $310.43 and you get a negative number = *$0 tax payable*

OHIP premium at $19K income is $0 dollars.

And for 2011..there is a additional tax benefit of a seniors property tax
grant (max $500) Not sure if this is in real dollars or a NRTC though.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Jon_Snow said:


> Carverman, as a man who has been married for only a couple of years, your story gets my stomach churning a bit... awful story.
> 
> As to the original thread topic, 2k per month is probably the best we are ever going to manage. We live quite well on 3k per month now... with the mortgage gone in a year, 2k will be our average. To get to $1000 a month would involve cancelling cable/internet, stop driving/insuring vehicle, eating cat food and stop enjoying occasional restaurant meals and a nice bottle of wine once and a while. Not worth it for us. You have to live a little bit.


Thanks for your sympathetic understanding. Yes I learned the hard way what can happen in civil procedings (ie: divorce process). UNLESS you can get a legal agreement to separate amicably and split the proceeds 50-50, and a reasonable time of support (ie: a few months to allow the former marriage partner to get on her (or his feet), IF it becomes a hot contested battle in
the courts(urged by the lawyers, who benefit immensely when a couple is fighting over silverware and stuff like that,
you can kiss any thoughts of a "golden retirement" goodbye.

The idea of these "civil" procedures is to a) break you financially (ie: milk you for all it's worth by the ex and the lawyers and of course your lawyer which has to respond in kind to undertakings as per the the civil procedures rules.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


.getting back to the original topic..I can manage (somewhat) on $1000 a month, if I apply to the City of Ottawa to defer my property taxes until the day I sell or die (which ever comes first).

However, other real property expenses I cannot defer such as:
Heating: Up to $210 a month in the winter (I pay as I go)
Electricity: $50-$60 a month
Cable/cell/internet: Another $100+ a month (I can cancel cable, but
I would be stranded without a cell or internet.

Property/fire insurance $50+ a month
and at this point I would have to rely on ParaTranspo to take me around
because vehicle insurance/repairs/gas would easily run $100 to $150
a month

So if I include the 13 year old vehicle and taxes, my current monthly expenses run about $655 a month currently. 
These expenses keep going up year after year, with with a realistic 5% inflation on most of these,
it wouldn't take more than 5 years or so, until my monthly fixed income is almost "eaten" up with fixed or discretionary costs.
(Vehicle and cable tv would be discretionary)


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> You're so right about the lawyers - at least many lawyers.
> My lawyer, who knew that my ex had been having an affair for at least two years prior to our separation, advised that we must immediately launch a counter-suit. I asked, "Why?" She said, "Because otherwise it will go on the record as you being the one at fault."


Well in civil procedures every case is different, but your lawyer was pushing you if by mentioning "at fault". In my case, my ex was seeing another man and he was staying more than overnight at the marital home, which the court granted her "exclusive right" to, because my daughter was still attending school. 

When they bought property together, he had it under his name at first (probably) to throw off the judge, (as I investigated that) and then only after the divorce was granted, did both of their names become listed on that same property as "Joint spouses
of each other"after they married within a couple of weeks. So there was some careful planning and advice given to both of them
by her lawyer. 

Prior to this, during the 3 day divorce proceeding, her boyfriend/ husband both appeared in court, and openingly sat together and with her lawyer.

The judge (female) in her decision ,
mentioned in the divorce judgement against me ......"that even though the "applicant" and her "friend" appear to have some
sort of relationship presently, that does not affect the outcome of my decision to absolve the respondent from paying support
to her or for that matter, anything they do afterwards, including marriage. " 

That my friends was the "final nail" driven into my coffin! 




> I said I just wanted it over as quickly and inexpensively as possible and I did not care who the paperwork showed was at fault - I knew within my own conscience who was the most to blame and that that was all that mattered to me. So she proceeded to carry out my instructions, but I'm sure she thought me the most uncooperative client she'd ever had.


Lawyers are used to that..people under duress..that is why they get paid the big bucks. I went through 3 lawyers during my divorce that dragged on for almost 4 years, due to stalling and legal wrangling.

My ex got a court decision in the meantime for interim support until the divorce was finalized and she was still working part-time
earning a living and being paid car expenses by her employer. although not on a full time basis. 

In my experience with "divorce lawyers", they all seem to be competent at first, but as I found out, *some are sloppy *in the way they handle or respond to demands or undertakings from "the other side". 

I had to *fire two of them *and one I couldn't afford the $10,000 he wanted up front to "prepare for trial" as I was drained financially at that time, and living in an apt , after being kicked out of the marital home by the courts, not to mention 
the *ex renting it out *for extra monthly income..until it was finally sold. Rent money which I never got 50% of!

Nasty stuff and it gets nastier the longer it is dragged out. Lawyers love this...
addressing each other as "my friend here says"..in court..what a charade!..when you know they can't stand each other otherwise. 



> In any case, my divorce went through within a few months at a cost to me of just over $2000 (in the early '80s). Can you imagine what it would have cost if I'd allowed her to talk me into following her recommendations? And how many more billing hours she would have spent on my file? Hmmm.


you got off very easy then! Mine cost $25k for me during the 4 years of divorce proceedings + $15K that I had to pay of her legal fees because that's the way the judge ruled, and then $30K at the time of my retirement.
Yet another battle over support payments(..not to mention $8300 of interest payable to her on the equalization payment due to her because the lawyers managed to drag it out for 4 YEARS! 



> All this is to encourage you not to rule out marriage for fear you'll get taken financially. Protect yourself as best you can by choosing *a woman who is financially self-sufficient and whom a reasonable judge would consider capable of supporting herself should things not work out. I* must admit that, if I were a man, I'd be wary of marrying a woman who has not shown herself capable of being self-supporting and who wants to be a stay-at-home housewife even after the children are well along in their schooling. Judges seem to *put all the blame on the husband and not make a wife take any responsibility for not preparing herself for making a living*.


While this is very good advice on the surface, many things can change over the course of a long marriage.
The actions/feelings of both partners can lead to marital problems and squabbling over finances..as in my case.

The judge in my divorce, took the following points into account (for indefinite support purposes)

a) length of the marriage which was a traditional marriage
b) our ages and whether my ex had enough time to recover financially
in the years remaining before the age of retirement (55-65)
c) My current salary/benefits vs hers (she was working part time for
a gum merchandising company and even contributed to a small pension at the time)

d) Her current education/training and prospects for future employment in
her field of employment ( which was in this case an X-RAY Technician at a hospital)

Minor point here: I paid for an X-ray refresher course for her in the Ottawa hospital, but she chose not to continue in that career, preferring to try out more "lucrative" career in REAL ESTATE, which didn't work out for her to be that lucrative after all.
When my lawyer asked her in court, "why didn't you return to work in the field you were trained for?"
She replied.."because there were no jobs at the time."


e) her financial dis-advantage for the years she stayed at home looking
after 2 children when she could be out earning a living and saving for
her retirement.

There were a couple of points on this that the divorce judge mentioned,
but I forget now after several years...


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

Wow, for a thread to get so far off topic and filled with such passionate argument has my already growing fear of marriage shooting through the roof!
Reading nothing seemingly but horror after horror story has me at the decision that I'd only ever get married if she's already rich, and STILL willing to sign an iron clad pre-nup. Maybe I'll get a wife when I'm 60 and "need" someone to take care of me. Until then I think I'll stick with girlfriends who I can kick out of my house if need be.


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

Don't forget that I had two wonderful marriages after the first bad experience; my life would have been much less happy if I had allowed my first marriage to influence me not to try again!



> Maybe I'll get a wife when I'm 60 and "need" someone to take care of me.


So you'll be looking for "a nurse with a purse"? I love that expression!


----------



## Berubeland (Sep 6, 2009)

Thanks Karen,

I'm glad to know I'm not the only one who thinks the way I do. Last time I said this I got myself a hater that kept after me for months and months. 

It's incredibly patronizing that in this day and age the legal system still has the entrenched view that "women need to be taken care of" 

The day I'll allow another human being to take responsibility for me is the day I die, when the undertaker takes over.


----------



## humble_pie (Jun 7, 2009)

hey pete da kay da shoe is on de other foot.
what gal w assets would ever think to marry you.

if you want em rich & good-looking, they'e all booked up.
moneygal is just a tad older & wiser, so she's out of your league.
t.gal is going to snag a brazilian billionnaire of her own.
& racer is already married to somebody else.


----------



## danny_yaya (Mar 21, 2011)

maybe 30 years ago...rent alone is $1200, plus gas and electricity, plus food, phones, car insurance, gas, etc....just not possible for me...i certainly wish i could tho!


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

peterk said:


> Wow, for a thread to get so far off topic and filled with such passionate argument has my already growing fear of marriage shooting through the roof!


Sorry about the very long posts..but I'm still p*ssed after 15 years of "being nailed to my coffin" financially by a civil justice that will take a bunch of hoey..."cooked" financial statements and then convince the judge that she needs support that badly.

No bones about it.. this was a DIVORCE FROM HELL!

Ok, I just managed to scrape up enough to satisfy her lawyer after he sent me a letter to "payup forthwith" or he was going to the sherriff to freeze or seize my bank accts until the matter was settled.
Those b*asterds charged me 6% interest on the equalization owing to her for 4 years, while they dragged their proverbial asses to get the "right judge" sitting to hear the case. After I got slapped with the divorce judgement against me, her lawyer was
after my case to pay up and charged calculated 5% interest on any amount that he determined I still owed her POST JUDGEMENT. Nobody cared about ME that I was struggling trying to work a normal day job and running to different banks to arrange a loan to pay her off!!

I will never forget this as long as I live..how the "great justice system in Canada" scr*ewed me. Everyone told me to fight her in court..but I was the financial and physcological victim after 2 days of grilling about my finances in court..it was not pretty and exhausted me and I had to take 5 days of vaction off work to appear in court. I had a bit of mental breakdown afterwards,
but managed to recover in about 5 months.

and My last lawyer (at the trial) scr*wed me as well by not preparing and presenting my updated financial statement to the court 7 days befor trial, so he did my financial statement by writing "some numbers for me and asking me if that was about right"
on blank form and getting me to sign, then he scrawled on it as if it was a sworn statement.
This was done 1/2 hour before the trial was to start, just outside the courtroom. (The judge did not accept
my financial statement, but accepted her fudged one, because her lawyer sent it in properly.) 



> Reading nothing seemingly but horror after horror story has me at the decision that I'd only ever get married if she's already rich, and STILL willing to sign an iron clad pre-nup. Maybe I'll get a wife when I'm 60 and "need" someone to take care of me. Until then I think I'll stick with girlfriends who I can kick out of my house if need be.


Well even girlfriends can be dangerous..as the case in Ottawa, where a former stripper bilked this guy confined to a wheelchair out of 850k!
She declared personal bankruptcy and claimed the money was all gone and she had nothing to show for it after being nabbed at the airport returning from living in Jamaica.
The courts just recently handed her 4 years in the calabose. Any bets she will get out after a year and a half on good behaviour and fly back to Jamaica where her other lover runs a business..guess where that 850K ended up?


----------



## kcowan (Jul 1, 2010)

carverman said:


> ... My last lawyer (at the trial) scr*wed me as well by not preparing and presenting my updated financial statement to the court 7 days befor trial, so he did my financial statement by writing "some numbers for me and asking me if that was about right"
> on blank form and getting me to sign, then he scrawled on it as if it was a sworn statement.
> 
> This was done 1/2 hour before the trial was to start, just outside the courtroom. (The judge did not accept my financial statement, but accepted her fudged one, because her lawyer sent it in properly.)


You may have a case for lawyer misconduct. For sure he did not represent you properly. And the opposing lawyer may have aided in the presentation of false information to the court. Since the essence of this case is financial, these are serious problems.


----------



## Toronto.gal (Jan 8, 2010)

humble_pie said:


> if you want em rich & good-looking, they'e all booked up.
> moneygal is just a tad older & wiser, so she's out of your league.
> *t.gal is going to snag a brazilian billionnaire of her own.*
> & racer is already married to somebody else.


LOL, but you're right, I attack the Latin Emerging Market. 

Can't imagine living on $1K a month in the city of Toronto, but I guess it all depends where one lives.

About divorce/lawyers/women/men: I think unfair rulings can be found on both sides. This subject reminded me of Paul McCartney's ex-wife, who wanted 1/2 of his fortune which took him a lifetime to build and yet she thought 4 years of marriage + 1 child had entitled her to such a split. But anyway, what was a man with such a fortune thinking when he married with no pre-nup?! 

I did NOT agree with this comment: *"this is why you often hear these stories in the news about men simply killing their wives or ex-wives as soon as they hear about possible divorce. Easier to take the 15 years in jail than be continually "raped" financially, have accounts frozen etc."* - killing is never the answer and the tragic thing is how many double murders have been committed recently, ie: pregnant women being murdered and these tend to be young people, ie: not yet established couples with any kind of fat banking accounts, so they commit the crime to escape accountability, embarrassment and such. A lot such stories on 48 hours Mystery on CBS. 

Not to blame anyone, but when it comes to divorce, statistically speaking, who causes the majority of divorces, past & present? 

http://women.ygoy.com/top-ten-reasons-for-divorce/


----------



## iherald (Apr 18, 2009)

Boy, I just started reading this thread, and it is interesting...

I live in Toronto and can't live on $1000 a month. I wonder if you could modify it and say could you live on $2-300 a month not including fixed costs?


----------



## Plugging Along (Jan 3, 2011)

iherald said:


> Boy, I just started reading this thread, and it is interesting...
> 
> I live in Toronto and can't live on $1000 a month. I wonder if you could modify it and say could you live on $2-300 a month not including fixed costs?


I agree. I was thinking that if you took my housing cost, and utilities (because this increases with the size of your house), the person had $450 as a single person to spend on none shelter items. Then you would have to factor in the number of people in your household, in our case 4 - then for our family it would be could we live on $1600 month. That would be another way to look at it. Also, I don't count childcare, as you can't get that for $1000 a month in for 2 kids.


----------



## Addy (Mar 12, 2010)

It depends where you live as well. We're in Winnipeg, bought a $50K house, paid it off in ~5 yrs, and property taxes of under $50/month. We have one vehicle, of which we rarely drive. If there was a car co-op in our area we would get rid of the one vehicle we do have. Daycare is $405/month, food prices are reasonable and there's lots of well paying jobs around.

We're making 70K less a year than we did in Vancouver six years ago and we're doing much, much better here than we ever could in Vancouver.

For those fighting the high cost of living in some of the larger cities, it's worth to move imho. Especially if you don't have attachments like family nearby that you feel obligated to stay close to.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

kcowan said:


> You may have a case for lawyer misconduct. For sure he did not represent you properly. And the opposing lawyer may have aided in the presentation of false information to the court. Since the essence of this case is financial, these are serious problems.


I looked into that and even approached the lawyer that messed up my case to indicate that I was contemplating suing him for letting me down in court.
His response was. "well go ahead. you are not going to win".....I was exhausted both mentally and financially at that time and decided after a few days not to pursue it any further. 

I was naive about lawyers back then..learned a lot that you can't always trust them to do the right thing in dealing with your individual case. He was a "lone wolf" type, and I didn't investigate him before I hired him to take on my case. 
That was my fault and unfortunately it worked against me. But I learned a lot about divorce lawyers and the way courts work.

For what it's worth, he did do a admirable job in court challenging her lawyer (a well known shark) even if he let me down on submitting the paper work to the court within the required 7 days.

Besides the lawyers, I actually hired to work on my case for court, I hired another lawyer as a " fact finder" to determine what options I had. That lawyer at first indicated that I may have a case for contesting it further, but after having his law student investigate the SCC rulings and local court rulings, on similar cases, came back, and indicated that it wasn't going to be easy
......and if he took on my case, it would be basically on a "fishing expedition" basis.

Well, we all know about fishing..sometimes you catch something and othertimes you don't..and I didn't pursue it any further. 
My cost for his legal opinion was $2000 , above what I already spent/spending on other lawyers.

Being rather "gun shy" about lawyers and trying to be pro-active, at the time of my retirement, when the ex indicated she would come gunning after me for "more gold", in terms of support, and would not go away until she got what she was entitled to under the law..(after all she was possibly losing a lucrative $1000 a month of support up to then), 

I hired yet another "legal opinion" lawyer to investigate my options while the current lawyer (the one I hired after firing the first lawyer for sloppy negotiation and letter writing), because this was my last "kick at the can" financially, because
I was being drained by the second lawyer. I needed to know whether my case was still worth the cost to me , but this
was at my retirement and I just couldn[t afford to pay lawyers and the ex $3000 a month on $1800 a month net,
and at that point I didn't know whether to just give in and represent myself in court , or still retain a lawyer if there
was any hope at all of any court judge ruling in my favour..*as a payor of indefinite support..a lifetime financial sentence*. 

This hired "professional opinion" lawyer, of a reputable law firm, took all my court documents and current information on my retirement and came up with his opinion that I had a case for terminating the indefinite support on my retirement...another
$2000 in legal fees again, on top of what I was paying to the lawyer preparing my case for court.

When the second lawyer started to object about my hiring an legal opinion lawyer to verify what he was telling me, he balked and wasn't very eager to work the case anymore, after knowning that, so I fired him, and finally found a 3rd lawyer for my
retirement case , that was willing to take on my "messy" case, although that cost me even more, because he had to start from scratch to learn about my case, and there was a bankers box full of documents he had to go through. 

As far as the financial statements of both parties..these are supposed to be sworn statements..but as I found out, the
lawyer just signs the statement as the "witness" and submits it to the court. It is up to the other lawyer then to
dig into the statement in court to prove whether the submitter is fudging the document or not. Because of time
constraints in court, it is normally too late to go through all the submissions. That has to be done during the
discovery phase, and although there was a discovery phase a year earlier, things had changed at the time
of divorce, when she transferred money out of bank accts that she had submitted, in order for her financial
position to look worse than it was. These are the dirty tricks than can take place in a civil action. 

RELEVANCE TO the original topic..
Can one live on a $1000 a month? (if forced to?) ....I was living on basically *$200 a month, for several months *and draining any small rainy day savings that I had managed to save after divorce.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

iherald said:


> Boy, I just started reading this thread, and it is interesting...
> 
> I live in Toronto and can't live on $1000 a month. I wonder if you could modify it and say could you live on $2-300 a month not including fixed costs?


Yes, it is possible, but that would only apply to discretionary spending..like food for yourself. 

As a single and frugal person, you can live on $200-$300 a month, (provided you don't have to pay for rent, heat, hydro,
insurances, phone/tv/internet or property taxes..and you take public transit. 
If you have a vehicle, variable costs, (that will cost $100 to $200 a month in gasoline and minor upkeep.)


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Toronto.gal said:


> About divorce/lawyers/women/men: I think unfair rulings can be found on both sides. This subject reminded me of Paul McCartney's ex-wife, who wanted 1/2 of his fortune which took him a lifetime to build and yet she thought 4 years of marriage + 1 child had entitled her to such a split. But anyway, what was a man with such a fortune thinking when he married with no pre-nup?!


I was very interested in their case after being subjected to the legal meat grinder. 

Paul was very vulnerable and naive after Linda, his first wife died of cancer. 
Being vulnerable physcologically, he was introduced to his second wife, (the one with the missing leg due to an accident from a police car). Heather Mills..an ex fashion model , had already at that point, somewhat of a reputation as a "gold digger", 
and her last boyfriend "pawned her off " on Paul, because she was interested in marrying him and looking for someone to support her in the lifestyle she was accustomed to. Her current boyfriend, had already sensed this , and didn't want to go ahead with
marrying her for this very reason..well at least that's how the story was written about them. 

So it is not surprising that when their marriage eventually failed, she went after him because of his enormous 
financial wealth (Apple records and royalties). 
...But having a $200 million (or more in assets) is a lot different than living off a $2000 a month pension and still paying $1000 a month indefinite support as I would have to do. 



> I did NOT agree with this comment: and such. A lot such stories on 48 hours Mystery on CBS.


I totally agree with you. These kind of vengeful acts are not what a rational
human being would do. It doesn't matter how badly you get burned in
divorce court, you pick up the pieces of your life and get on with it..even
on a reduced income. 



> Not to blame anyone, but when it comes to divorce, statistically speaking, who causes the majority of divorces, past & present?
> http://women.ygoy.com/top-ten-reasons-for-divorce/


Yes, that is a very good summary. In my case it was financial..earning it and how it was spent..that led to the eventual
breakdown..so #5. and especially #6 and 7 definitely applied in my case. When one spouse has a job and not willing
to contribute any portion of their earnings to help or share household expenses (essentially living for free), then
there will be a lot of disagreement that will undermine any other aspects of the marriage.


----------



## chaudi (Sep 10, 2009)

first you need one of these floating home
Then you need a fishin' pool. But sure to live much less than a $1000 a month. Long as you don't mind Florida but you could come north for the summer, just save some gas money or sail.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

chaudi said:


> first you need one of these floating home
> Then you need a fishin' pool. *But sure to live much less than a $1000 a month. Long as you don't mind Florida *but you could come north for the summer, just save some gas money or sail.


Yer kidding right? Travelling across the US border nowdays is a major challenge, you pretty much need a passport and documentation..and lots ...of cash to get there and live..unless, of course, that you can convince the authorities that
you are a professional panhandler.... but on a secret agent assignment.

Sailing on $1000 a month..ya right..I'll carve my sailboat and put it in my bathtub.


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

carverman said:


> Yer kidding right? Travelling across the US border nowdays is a major challenge, you pretty much need a passport and documentation..and lots ...of cash to get there and live..unless, of course, that you can convince the authorities that
> you are a professional panhandler.... but on a secret agent assignment.
> 
> Sailing on $1000 a month..ya right..I'll carve my sailboat and put it in my bathtub.


Having lived in Florida for a brief period of time (work assignment), I'd say it is not hard to live on $1,000 as long as you are not running a full fledged household, complete with kids, mortgage, fancy car, etc.
In other words, a single person or even a couple with modest needs and a frugal mindset can quite easily live on $1,000 USD a month in Florida.
I'm not accounting for the cost of driving or flying back and forth every few months, of course.

Also, FL has a wide range in cost of living, from Miami beach to some of the smaller towns in the heartland and north Florida.
For example, it would be rather easy to live in a place like Gainsville or Tampa Bay.
As long as you stay away from the touristy town and the areas fueled by RE investment, it's a rather cheap place to retire for a couple.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

My current budget is about $1300 (just for me, not both of us) a month living in a rental apartment shared with my wife. I could probably easily drop that to $1100-1200 by cutting down on eating out and entertainment expenses but getting below $100 would be tough.


----------



## realist (Apr 8, 2011)

On Divorce:

"I'm happy to give away half my money, that would be great," said Foley. "But I'm literally obligated to give away 400 per cent of my income, or otherwise go to jail.

"The judge even said, if I was paralyzed from the neck down, I would still be responsible for having to earn a million dollars a year."

http://www.thestar.com/entertainmen...canadian-arrest-owes-500-000-in-child-support

http://ca.news.yahoo.com/blogs/dail...oley-claims-t-afford-20110204-123011-544.html


----------



## peterk (May 16, 2010)

realist said:


> On Divorce:
> 
> "I'm happy to give away half my money, that would be great," said Foley. "But I'm literally obligated to give away 400 per cent of my income, or otherwise go to jail.
> 
> ...


Scary stuff... the worst part is that the wife, at any point, could make a quick phone call and the entire problem would just disappear.


I live off $1000/month quite easily, as a student. $500 rent, 300 food, 200 cellphone, beer and incidentals. I`m not even sure HOW I would spend $5000/month like some people do. I GUESS I could if I were forced to


----------



## Karen (Jul 24, 2010)

I certainly couldn't live on $1000/month in the Vancouver area, and I live alone and don't live an extravagant life style by any means. My house and car are both paid for, but the cost of maintaining them is over $800 alone, without allowing for any other expenses, including food. My monthly costs for those two items are as follows:

House:

$161 Property tax
$ 76 House insurance (including earthquake coverage)
$ 15 City utilities (water, sewer, garbage collection)
$ 45 Electricity
$164 Heating (Gas)
$148 Shaw (TV basic cable, telephone, internet)
$ 20 Cell phone, very basic

Car:

$138 Car insurance
$ 50 Gas

These expenses total $817 per month. Yes, I could cut back on a few things if I absolutely had to (cell phone, cable, internet) but those expenses are pretty basic by today's standards.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

realist said:


> On Divorce:
> 
> "I'm happy to give away half my money, that would be great," said Foley. "But I'm literally obligated to give away 400 per cent of my income, or otherwise go to jail.
> 
> "The judge even said, if I was paralyzed from the neck down, I would still be responsible for having to earn a million dollars a year."


Being a PAYOR of child and spousal support during the last 4 years of my working life.... and still a spousal support payor to this very day..I do sympathesize (in some way with him)..but the fact remains that once you create children, both parents are responsible for their support ....and that support can be amended on a motion before the court if the RECIPIENT
deems that the current order is not enough..ie: both small childeren grown up into young adults and going to university. 
The PAYOR (in most cases) is on the hook with FRO until the children reach 25 years of age and for any arrears payable to
the RECIPIENT (usually the ex-spouse). 

How do I know this?..because I fought a long and expensive battle in the courts over not necessarily the child support, (which was garnished from my wages by court order through FRO), but over spousal support for a spouse that was working parttime and remarried after the divorce proceedings.

The courts will determine support payable based on children's needs and the ability of the PAYOR to pay based on his current income. This income includes, lottery winnings, overtime and bonuses, etc as well..as in case of a salesperson.

Now, AFAIK, the PAYOR or Recipient can approach FRO mutally and modify or even eliminate support altogether on a voluntary basis..but this seldom happens ..unless the child reaches age 25 or is no longe in school and self sufficient. 
There are extenuating circumstances in every case that the court will consider.

<quote from online source>
Foley now owes $17,301.30 monthly toward his two children, who are both now teenagers: the $10,700 in child support agreed to in 2001, now raised to $12,301.30 to reflect cost of living increases, plus $5,000 a month toward the overdue $589,000 he already owes. For a performer, that means that once taxes and a 20 per cent commission are factored in, he has to earn $40,000 per month, he figures, before he can see a dime. <endquote.

Yup..he is in deep do do......neither personal bankruptcym nor changing fortunes will get him off the hook with the FRO..they will confiscate his drivers license and passport..and he will have the stigma of "deadbeat dad" placed on him.

any assets he acquires between now and his demise will first go to the FRO to repay arrears he owes which are substantial,
because he let it get out of control,,,..that includes ALL gov't checks..such as McGinty's HST rebate, income tax rebate etc.
..he is SO severely screwed this time and if he doesn't hire a lawyer to go back to court to modify the standing support order
on a motion (based on the means to pay)..he WILL be placed in jail as an example to other deadbeat dads..at some point!

The courts will consider modifications to any judgement (court order) based on means to pay..this is referred to as
a "material change in circumstance" for the person with the judgement against them. In my case, it was my retirement
and soon, the demise of my Nortel DB pension that will be wrapped up this year as it is no longer sustainable.
The current support order against me is a garnishment of my Nortel pension by FRO. 

I will be forced to pay INDEFINITE support to my re-married ex-spouse until I either die, she dies or I find the
money for legal fees to go back to court for the 3rd time, to either modify (or even possibly eliminate) the current
standing support order..now here is the thing guys (&gals)..IF and when my pension ceases to exist..and it will
in a few months, *I am still obligated by the courts to pay support until such time as the order is modified.
They don't care where I find the money..and if I'm in arrears a great deal, they will take sheriffs orders proceedings
to sieze any or all assets. Thus it is written..sad but true! *


----------



## HaroldCrump (Jun 10, 2009)

Karen said:


> I certainly couldn't live on $1000/month in the Vancouver area, and I live alone and don't live an extravagant life style by any means. My house and car are both paid for, but the cost of maintaining them is over $800 alone, without allowing for any other expenses, including food.


Yeah, but Florida is quite different than Vancouver.
General cost of living is much cheaper in the smaller FL towns.


----------



## carverman (Nov 8, 2010)

Karen said:


> I certainly couldn't live on $1000/month in the Vancouver area, and I live alone and don't live an extravagant life style by any means. My house and car are both paid for, but the cost of maintaining them is over $800 alone, without allowing for any other expenses, including food. My monthly costs for those two items are as follows:
> 
> House:
> 
> ...


SO??? You ARE under $1000 a month and you still have $183 a month
for food, incidentals, toothpaste and that $8 bottle of wine.


----------

