Any news on new divorce act passing through courts?

[Jack Peterson]

3 minutes ago, AlwaysRt said:

the part where the woman has 100% control over a man's life)

 Oh boy aren't the truth, here, there, everywhere

[Dave Hounddriver]

18 minutes ago, AlwaysRt said:

Seems like individuals should be deciding for themselves, no place for government here.

I believe its all about the money.  If two people live together and both earn minimum wage they will get fewer benefits if their income is added together as "family income".  If they are two separate individuals, living below the poverty line, they get more benefits.  That is why socialized countries had to come up with this "common law marriage" rule.  IMHO

[AlwaysRt]

6 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

I believe its all about the money.  If two people live together and both earn minimum wage they will get fewer benefits if their income is added together as "family income".  If they are two separate individuals, living below the poverty line, they get more benefits.  That is why socialized countries had to come up with this "common law marriage" rule.  IMHO

I understand that but it gets very convoluted and who decides and how? How can the government tell if a man and woman are 'a family' or friends? Man and man, or woman and woman room mates to save money or a gay/lesbian couple? All types of relationships people do many things together but they are not a couple just as many couples do almost nothing together. How is it fair that the two people in apartment 10 each get full benefits but the two people in apartment 11 do not because they are 'a family'. Talk about discriminatory behavior that is all about the money...

(I think I took the off topic exit on the road, maybe break this into a topic of its own? Or just I just need to stop talking about it here.)

[Dave Hounddriver]

22 minutes ago, AlwaysRt said:

who decides and how?

I suggest it is the one branch of government that is all about money, which I stated it is all about, and the one branch of government where you are guilty until proven innocent.  I refer, of course, to the Tax department.  They will decide you are a common-law couple until you prove otherwise.

[Jack Peterson]

5 minutes ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

I refer, of course, to the Tax department.  They will decide you are a common-law couple until you prove otherwise.

I have to agree with this Young Man, Although many years ago (I can't see it would have changed) Azon had to go to the BIR (then down by Immigration) with the marriage certificate and a name change confirmation from the Company to reassess her Tax Liability and This then put me as her Beneficiary. This good for me as (God forbid) if she passes away first I get the Lump sum from the Company and then after the Estate taxes what is left 

 I will say at that time, it halved her tax payments  Yep! I kid you not

[bigpearl]

4 hours ago, AlwaysRt said:

In any of these instances how does the government know what goes on behind closed doors and how can they dictate what type of relationship you have? If one or both parties do not want to be married nothing forces the other to stay. If 'big brother' (the government, I suppose 'big sister' in Australia from what I hear) decides who is and who isn't. Anyone who goes to University for 4 years with the same room mate could be married to each other? Seems like individuals should be deciding for themselves, no place for government here.

note, this has nothing to do with children. have a child and your responsibility begins day one, no waiting period. Although it does seem odd, and this may be a different topic if you want, only a woman can decide to have an abortion. A man can not force her and if she wants the baby then that's that, he is committed for 18 years. However if he wants the baby and she does not, too bad so sad. Does not sound like equality on that count. (not talking about if abortion is/should be legal or not, only the part where the woman has 100% control over a man's life)

Regardless cohabitation laws and recognitions are predetermined by "big sister" and "big children" (the states and territories in Oz). Whether de facto or married the winners are the mouth pieces (lawyers) if an amicable resolution can not be negotiated, fulfilling both parties needs and then ratified by a lawyer/attorney at little cost, they hate sensible people.

Who is and who isn't comes back to the law, proof etc. and not sharing a house or roommate. These laws are put in place to protect and give guidelines. Smart people work it out for themselves and save money. Greedy people can't see the trees for the forest and perpetuate a flawed legal system egged on by the very system that our esteemed government members in their wisdom instituted as law. BTW how many lawyers are in overpaid positions within all governments that feather their friends incomes and their own when they are out of the political arena? Are there any truths in these observations within the Philippines? Why make it so hard to move on when a buck can be made, Why torture the people with bureaucracy, financial losses, frustration and hate over a simple,,,,,,,,,,,,, it didn't work out, let's move on and not be vindictive, a cursed human trait.

BTW only an observation on my part that could be incorrect.

Cheers, Steve.

[bigpearl]

4 hours ago, Dave Hounddriver said:

I believe its all about the money.  If two people live together and both earn minimum wage they will get fewer benefits if their income is added together as "family income".  If they are two separate individuals, living below the poverty line, they get more benefits.  That is why socialized countries had to come up with this "common law marriage" rule.  IMHO

Good observation Dave, trimming the fat. There in lies the lies and denials of the couple that share a house and have 2 seperate bedrooms waiting for the knock at the door, a sad way to live but the benefits are better.

Cheers, Steve.

[bigpearl]

4 hours ago, AlwaysRt said:

I understand that but it gets very convoluted and who decides and how? How can the government tell if a man and woman are 'a family' or friends? Man and man, or woman and woman room mates to save money or a gay/lesbian couple? All types of relationships people do many things together but they are not a couple just as many couples do almost nothing together. How is it fair that the two people in apartment 10 each get full benefits but the two people in apartment 11 do not because they are 'a family'. Talk about discriminatory behavior that is all about the money...

(I think I took the off topic exit on the road, maybe break this into a topic of its own? Or just I just need to stop talking about it here.)

Laws are set by government/s as a legal "passed by parliament or congress" processed, that's the law. The legal system finds the loopholes within the  legislation in civil cases, sometimes bigger fish are fried. That's their job and that's why the charge accordingly.

Civil/legal restitution in all cases will and can be challenged but hey? Who wants to go down the expensive path, work it out with your ex and point out the vulnerabilities and costs to save 5 Pesos and get on with your life.

Hope I'm not off track here.

Cheers, Steve.

[Jack Peterson]

24 minutes ago, bigpearl said:

Hope I'm not off track here.

Depends really where we are talking about the Average Filipino Non married couple usually live on his or her parents Land or in the house I have many times, seen problems on Splitting, he has to go if it's  her mama and she has to go if it is His mama but whatever 1/2 of Nothing to be shared is 1/2 of Nothing. The Philippines have a Long way to go to get anywhere near the Western attitude of Divorce even if it was ever passed.

 Then I have a Friend who  has found a way round this and as always, things get written on Flour. We are where we are,

*Edit* of course unless they have fairly good jobs  and a house on their own Lot)even married couples live at home so to speak

Edited October 10, 2017 by Jack Peterson
added a little

[Jollygoodfellow]

2 hours ago, bigpearl said:

Whether de facto or married the winners are the mouth pieces (lawyers)

Reminds me of many years ago when I was going through a divorce. I was at my lawyer's office writing up a list of assets etc and l said to him, who will win out of all this, his answer was I will.