I really hate these CBC articles where they talk about a huge, legitimate issue, but undercut it by choosing a crazy/unrelated example:
Charmbury, 47, has to make sacrifices because 100 per cent of her income goes to her rent.
She had to sell her house after her divorce and now pays $2,679 per month for a three-bedroom townhouse in the same neighbourhood. She didn’t want her children, a teen boy and teen girl, to have to switch schools or share a bedroom.
So, she’s been cashing in her investments. Child support helps with the bills, her mother helps her with groceries and her friends give her their old clothes. She says she barely sleeps from the stress.
Even 30 years ago, I had friends who had to change schools/share a room when their parents divorced. Putting someone who refuses to make tough decisions and try live within her means in the same category as adults who have to live with multiple roommates, face homelessness, etc. is insulting.
Also, I’m pretty sure most would say child support is income, even if it’s not taxable income. She’s spending 100% of her employment income/paycheques on rent.
I really hate these CBC articles where they talk about a huge, legitimate issue, but undercut it by choosing a crazy/unrelated example
So a Woman is forced to sell her home in a divorce, and to ensure her children don’t get upended in a very difficult part of their lives, sacrifices every cent she makes to stay in the same area for them and you think that is an “unrelated example”?
Even 30 years ago, I had friends who had to change schools/share a room when their parents divorced. Putting someone who refuses to make tough decisions and try live within her means in the same category as adults who have to live with multiple roommates, face homelessness, etc. is insulting.
What is insulting is your complete lack of empathy for your “friends” who were forced into that growing up, and your attack on this Woman for not putting her children through that.
Also, I’m pretty sure most would say child support is income, even if it’s not taxable income. She’s spending 100% of her employment income/paycheques on rent.
Yes, and 100% of that support is supposed to go to the children it is paid to. Not for her to use on other things.
In case it isn’t clear, your comment is absolutely disgusting and tone deaf. You should reflect on why you feel the need to attack people who are struggling when it is clear to me from your lack of empathy you have no idea what a real struggle looks like.
While choosing to live outside their means, for their children, is commendable, it’s not a great example of the problem. Many people never have the opportunity to make that choice at all and are now homeless as a result.
It is a good example because it shows everyone that who is next on the block.
Ya’ll didn’t give a fuck until now and I am the poor kid trying to hold their empathy while everyone cries about their last 5 years that has been my last 35. If I can have empathy for this Woman who very likely would have crossed the street for me back in the day you can to. I had nothing and was homeless as a result numerous times in my childhood, teen years, and early adult life. One shouldn’t have to hit the bottom to be heard.
Don’t let perfect be the enemy of good and stop competing in the Trauma Olympics.
You aren’t helping anyone by doing either.
You make a lot of assumptions about me and my experiences, and frankly, they’re 100% wrong. I wasn’t trying to insinuated that her situation is easy, I even say it’s “making tough decisions”.
When one refuses to speak, the other is forced to make assumptions. Frankly, I don’t care if you say I am wrong. I can read, I have heard these words from others, and know who I am dealing with.
I would bet 3:1 that you have nothing serious in your past that you could prove to me. I would bet 100:1 that I could not prove my bullshit life to you and I lived it. Get the point?
I don’t think you will, so the point is, you attacked a person for being a bad example because they are struggling and not at rock bottom because people exist at the bottom.
If you had ever been there you would know better, so I stand by my assessment. Don’t bother responding, I won’t waste further time with you.
Stay well.
She had to sell her house after her divorce and now pays $2,679 per month for a three-bedroom townhouse in the same neighbourhood. She didn’t want her children, a teen boy and teen girl, to have to switch schools or share a bedroom
Then… What did selling the house achieve…?
She probably didn’t qualify to take on the whole mortgage without her ex-Spouse.
Understood. I’ve only recently been learning how much Canadian mortgages force their lendees to “readjust” to new conditions. In the US you can generally keep the initial terms shy of a refinance or foreclosure
Can you provide any local insight as to whether you can find a decent house at a lower rate than that?
I know housing affordability is a shit show there and that lady isn’t making enough no matter what she does but I’m curious how much she could have lowered that percentage
I’m pretty sure she’d be in the same situation in the US. Assuming the house was jointly owned and she had the ability to buy out her ex-Spouse’s equity or get the whole home in the divorce, there would still be a change of ownership, so she’d need to get a new mortgage solely in her name.
I know I’ve heard of couples splitting up and coming up with creative solutions, like continuing to jointly own the house, but that doesn’t seem to be the case here.
