Is monogamy really possible??

[The Shake]

Sorry, you're wrong about that.

Ah, no.

According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, 61.3% of Canadians filed tax returns (2000) claiming income of less than $30,000. A further 27.5% had income between $30,000 and $60,000.

That accounts for 90% of Canadians so, even if every one of the 2.8% of the population earning more than $100,000 per year married a postal worker who never had children and pursued her career to the fullest, your example would still be extremely rare.

But, even it were true only rarely, it demonstrates the unfair way in which the law can operate.

You can't make laws based on exceptions.

 

[Bud Plug]

Ah, no.

According to the Canadian Taxpayers Federation, 61.3% of Canadians filed tax returns (2000) claiming income of less than $30,000. A further 27.5% had income between $30,000 and $60,000.

That accounts for 90% of Canadians so, even if every one of the 2.8% of the population earning more than $100,000 per year married a postal worker who never had children and pursued her career to the fullest, your example would still be extremely rare.



You can't make laws based on exceptions.

Interesting statistics, but they don't paint the picture we'd need to look at.

Those statistics include all of the singles, students, teenagers, etc who file tax returns. We'd need to compare the earnings of principal wage earners in married households to the incomes of their spouse in order to look at the effects of spousal support laws. I'm not in the business of collecting this information, but I am influenced by my own anecdotal experience. I know of very few couples, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the whole, where the incomes of both spouses are roughly comparable. That experience mirrors the other information discussed in this thread about the lower incomes of married women, particularly if they have children.

On another note, are you saying that equalizing two individuals with 25K and 50K incomes respectively to roughly 37.5K each would not represent a significant change in each of their respective lifestyle opportunities? On your stats, that example would be extremely common.

And, yes, of course you can make laws that take into account even rare inequities. And you should, if there is a system which would not result in those inequities.

 

[The Shake]

I know of very few couples, both in raw numbers and as a percentage of the whole, where the incomes of both spouses are roughly comparable. That experience mirrors the other information discussed in this thread about the lower incomes of married women, particularly if they have children.

Thanks for just proving my point.

There is a gap because women are more likely to exit the workforce or pass on certain opportunities because of spousal or family needs. The reason why she's making less than her husband is because she took time off to raise the kids, or passed on a promotion because her husband didn't want to move/give up his job.

Anyway, we're arguing in circles. I think that, in long-term marriages with children, the woman makes significant sacrifices and it is right/just to expect that she can maintain a relatively similar lifestyle as her husband if the marriage ends. You don't, and nothing I say here is going to convince you otherwise. I don't dispute your claim that some men are treated unfairly by the system, particularly in the (relatively) small number of divorces for childless couples. Certainly, the idea of spousal support in those situations is, for the most part, dated and unnecessary. I'm sure we agree on that point!

 

[lomotil]

I have spoken to some of my NA female friends and some have said "bread over love" or "marry a rich man and have a pool boy for love" ... LOL ...

How about John Bassett and Isabel Bassett or Jack Layton and Olivia Chow or John Jerry and his Heinz wife LOL!!!

"Nothing is new under the sun" - Plato

Does Olivia Chow have a pool boy for love?