MF YYC Politics - there, I mega did it

[flamesfever]

Originally Posted by Cappy

How does society benefit from marriage vs common law?

because you said "i do" in the presence of god?

The main benefit is that marriage creates a more stable society, in that it offers greater protection, spousal support, rights and obligations compared to common law.

Although it could be argued that common law relationships are becoming more common with time, in my experience without commitment, they tend to come with considerable risk in the long run.

[flamingreen]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The main benefit is that marriage creates a more stable society, in that it offers greater protection, spousal support, rights and obligations compared to common law.

Although it could be argued that common law relationships are becoming more common with time, in my experience without commitment, they tend to come with considerable risk in the long run.

You might be surprised at the level of protection, spousal support, rights and obligations that common law provides (in Alberta).

[PepsiFree]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Our man not passing PepsiFree’s test…

No, I mean the citizenship test, genius lol.

[topfiverecords]

Originally Posted by Cappy

How does society benefit from marriage vs common law?

because you said "i do" in the presence of god?

Weddings are good for the economy.

[Robbob]

Originally Posted by getbak

I can understand the argument for only allowing citizens to vote at the federal level because the federal government deals a lot with international issues, diplomacy, aid, and the military, so you only want citizens to be electing people who will be dealing with those issues.

At the municipal level, I don't see it being that important. At the end of the day, whether you were born in Canada, the US, the UK, Ukraine, Russia, Israel, or Palestine, if you're living in Calgary, you just want the potholes on your street fixed and the road plowed in the winter. You want the fire department to show up if you call 911 and your water to flow when you turn on a tap. You want your daughter to be able to take public transit to an 8am class at the University without needing to leave home at 5am.

I'd rather have a PR who has lived in Calgary for 20 years and plans to live here for 40 more voting in municipal elections than someone who moved here in their early 20s to make as much money as they can before moving back to wherever they grew up before they're 40. I'm not suggesting we take away the latter's right to vote, but I don't have any problem looking at granting it to the former.

Yeah I have no issues with giving the vote to municipal elections. We barely get 45% voter turn out. If non citizens want to get involved in municipal side of things, then have at it. 55% of us can't be bothered.

[Bill Bumface]

Originally Posted by The Yen Man

Is this unfair to the perm residents that contribute to Canada but can't vote? Perhaps, but that's another motivation to become a citizen.

For me, it's the time component. Lots of people are PRs for a long time before they eventually become citizens. Being able to vote before they gain citizenship makes sense to me, as not all that much changes about how they participate in local society by reaching the benchmark of citizenship.

[RogerWilco]

Originally Posted by STAMPEDRED

Because you struggle to see how commitment makes a difference.

Common law wants all the benefits of being married - without being married

PR wants all the benefit of societal sway in governance - without being Canadian.

Want to vote? Get married - to the nation. Don’t want to become Canadian? Then be quiet. We are more than capable of making our own mistakes as Canadians without a PR’s help lol.

I have an old friend that has been with his common law partner for 28 years and has two almost adult children. I have another friend that has been divorced twice. Which one seems to be more committed to you?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by flamesfever

The main benefit is that marriage creates a more stable society, in that it offers greater protection, spousal support, rights and obligations compared to common law.

Although it could be argued that common law relationships are becoming more common with time, in my experience without commitment, they tend to come with considerable risk in the long run.

The main benefit of common law is it protects the lower earning partner. Marriage and Common Law aren’t about tax benefits. It’s an economic contract to take care of the other person.

Pre-women earning significant incomes the whole system is essentially designed to ensure they are not destitute after divorce. Now it protects either lower earning partner.

Essentially common law exists to expand the protections of marriage to more people.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by STAMPEDRED

The whole idea of PR being the train of thought to vote is the same thought that went from married couples getting tax benefits to now coupled up without actually being married : common law, without the hassle of really being committed.

Society truly doesn’t benefit from it. But many argue it does, and will point to their own reasons of course. But you are still not married - meaning you refused to be fully committed, but don’t see why you can’t have the full benefits of being married at your disposal.

Same with this view point of being PR is basically being a Canadian - so don’t make me become committed to that nation whatsoever (cause it may not work and I’d end up getting divorced from this nation), but I demand full ability to dictate what happens where I live.

You want to be able to have your voice heard? Then become a citizen. If not, then beat it. Be thankful there’s a way that you can have your voice heard and be part of societal governance. Too much to ask? Then the lack of desire to do what’s required doesn’t mean society has to stoop to those lazy levels.

What tax benefits do you get from being married. Divorced parents have way better access to income splitting through spousal support and child tax benefits by not having combined household incomes. Then you each claim a kid as equivalent to spouse if you each pay eachother child support.

You get income splitting in retirement and that’s about it.

[calf]

PRs are clearly not committed to being in Canada. Unlike Citizens, their residency here is not permanent.

[powderjunkie]

Originally Posted by GGG

The main benefit of common law is it protects the lower earning partner. Marriage and Common Law aren’t about tax benefits. It’s an economic contract to take care of the other person.

Pre-women earning significant incomes the whole system is essentially designed to ensure they are not destitute after divorce. Now it protects either lower earning partner.

Essentially common law exists to expand the protections of marriage to more people.

As you mention in next post, combined household income is more likely to disqualify or limit a number of benefits…yet the tax burden of the same HHI can be much higher where one partner earns a lot more compared to partners earning similarly

[GGG]

Originally Posted by powderjunkie

As you mention in next post, combined household income is more likely to disqualify or limit a number of benefits…yet the tax burden of the same HHI can be much higher where one partner earns a lot more compared to partners earning similarly

That’s my point. Marriage doesn’t really come with tax benefits until you are a senior. Common Law isn’t extending benefits it’s extending protections/penalties.

[Regorium]

Originally Posted by STAMPEDRED

Because you struggle to see how commitment makes a difference.

Common law wants all the benefits of being married - without being married

PR wants all the benefit of societal sway in governance - without being Canadian.

Want to vote? Get married - to the nation. Don’t want to become Canadian? Then be quiet. We are more than capable of making our own mistakes as Canadians without a PR’s help lol.

Could you share what benefits you get from being married?

When I got married, I paid more taxes and got less back. I'm clearly doing it wrong.

[fotze2]

My wife I and decided to stay PR for a reason. A foot on the other side to keep options open. It’s some forms and some money. It’s a minuscule benefit for a small amount of effort. All one of those PRs demanding to vote can fata off.

[CaptainYooh]

Originally Posted by fotze2

My wife I and decided to stay PR for a reason. A foot on the other side to keep options open. ...

Cushioning isn't cheating...

[fotze2]

Originally Posted by CaptainYooh

Cushioning isn't cheating...

I feel bad making my kid American. He now has to file taxes forever now. He was so mad when I called him American. Swinging punches haha. I’m Canadian!! Sorry buds, you’re also American.

[Locke]

Originally Posted by fotze2

I think he's metaphorically Hitler.

No...I refer to him as...'The Chairman.'

Because I've had a bust of Mao on my desk ever since Slave went to China.

And there is something in there. We just dont know what it is.

[btimbit]

Originally Posted by Locke

No...I refer to him as...'The Chairman.'

Because I've had a bust of Mao on my desk ever since Slave went to China.

And there is something in there. We just dont know what it is.

The plot thickens

[Slava]

Originally Posted by Locke

No...I refer to him as...'The Chairman.'

Because I've had a bust of Mao on my desk ever since Slave went to China.

And there is something in there. We just dont know what it is.

Haha, I can assure you there’s nothing in there! That was x-rayed several times to board flights.

[Slava]

The bag bylaw is gone after a 12-3 vote. To the surprise of no one, Kourtney Penner was one of the three because of course she was.