obamacare marital separation

[Ridgerunner]

Also, OP, just so you know, the fact that you divorced your wife legally for the sole purpose of finding a legal loophole that would allow your wife to receive welfare/disability is absolutely a relevant piece of information. You claimed earlier you would inform them of all relevant information, does this mean that you intend to make sure they know that your divorce is only a farce used to get around the technicalities of the law as written?

What’s a farcical divorce to a government that endorses same sex marriages? Does the government require that the parties no longer love each other for a valid divorce? Does it require that they never have sex again? No. It doesn’t care anything about any of that. It cares about legal status as it defines it, and “household” status as the government defines that.

I’m not sure the OP has actually divorced his wife. I think he’s only talking about doing it. Might be wrong about that.

I personally despise the paper Obamacare was written on. But when the government says it’s going to regulate a very big portion of your welfare and wellbeing and defines things in such a way as to punish marriage, to what degree do we really owe it to the government to accept that punishment?

 

[Ridgerunner]

Yes, this is also why St Valentine was martyred for performing illegal weddings in Rome, but when weddings are legal in the state, the church REQUIRES you to follow the civil procedure so that you are truly “all in” .

You can not get married in the US in the church without a civil marriage license. Likewise the church would not honor a situation where the couple civilly divorced to try and manipulate the civil regulations.

For now, perhaps. But as I mentioned before, no priest has in the slightest way castigated my Mexican-American friend for not remarrying his wife civilly when he and his wife honor the validity of their indissoluble Catholic marriage.

 

[Jon_S_1]

For now, perhaps. But as I mentioned before, no priest has in the slightest way castigated my Mexican-American friend for not remarrying his wife civilly when he and his wife honor the validity of their indissoluble Catholic marriage.

Are you certain their priest knows, if not pass on their info and I will write their Bishop for you!

 

[thewanderer]

What’s a farcical divorce to a government that endorses same sex marriages? Does the government require that the parties no longer love each other for a valid divorce? Does it require that they never have sex again? No. It doesn’t care anything about any of that. It cares about legal status as it defines it, and “household” status as the government defines that.

The real question is what is the purpose of the laws about welfare and disability? Why would there be a law saying that the OP’s wife can collect disability if she is unmarried and the head of her own separate household but cannot if she is? It is because the disability allowance is supposed to help out those who need to provide for their household but who are unable to do so. The OP is trying to get around the spirit of the law (helping out those who need it) so that he can make a financial gain. He is married to his wife and even if he divorces from her still intends to provide for her financial needs. She does not and will not need to provide for those living in her household as her husband will continue to do so. Having a safety net to help out those who really need it is important in a society, it is morally obligatory to have such from the point of view of Catholicism. Whether the current welfare system is the best way to have such a safety net can be argued, but the fact is that in our society, it is the safety net we have for such people. Helping to break this safety net by abusing it for personal financial gain is immoral. I’m sorry but thats all there is to it. Helping to destroy the lifeline we are morally obliged to provide those in need for the sake of personal financial gain is immoral. So, just as everyone else who is abusing the system is behaving immorally the OP would also be behaving immorally (whether or not he is acting legally) in trying to find a loophole to get around the spirit of the law and abuse it for his own personal financial gain.

I’m not sure the OP has actually divorced his wife. I think he’s only talking about doing it. Might be wrong about that.

Thanks for spotting that and correcting it. I meant that in a hypothetical, if he were to go through with it kind of way.

I personally despise the paper Obamacare was written on. But when the government says it’s going to regulate a very big portion of your welfare and wellbeing and defines things in such a way as to punish marriage, to what degree do we really owe it to the government to accept that punishment?

This isn’t about a punishment for being married. Putting in restrictions to try and make sure that welfare only goes to those who actually need it is not about punishing those who are married. Just like fighting to preserve marriage as between one man and one woman is not about discriminating against those with homosexual tendencies. In both cases we are trying to preserve a good thing. It is a good thing to have a safety net in place for those who really need it, just as it is a good thing to promote and encourage stable marriages between the biological parents of children as studies have shown that the best environment for a child to grow up in is a loving and stable home in which he/she is cared for by his/her biological parents. Attempting to restrict welfare handouts to those who really need it is not discriminating against people who are married, its merely trying to preserve the nature of what welfare is supposed to be, the safety net for those in our society who truly need financial help. Framing it any other way is just avoiding the real issue at hand.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Financial security

I have been looking through my Bible, the Catechism, and other Church writings.

I cannot seem to find anything about the pursuit of “financial security” . The only place I see Christ talk about such a thing is in the context of giving away your financial security to the poor.

I must be missing something. Based on what you have been saying there must be something saying

“Pursue wealth and riches to God’s glory”

Or

“Obtain Financial Security to ease your troubles”

Or

“Put your faith in money and material positions”

maybe I just dont get it

 

[royal_archer]

AFHGOLD:

Technically yes if the law isn’t being broken it’s his risk.

However, my problem is this and I want to ask Royal Archer this.

Royal Archer,

Why do you want to do this in the first place? Why do you want to divorce your wife on a legal/state stand point so she can collect welfare? Please state clearly what your reasoning is here because there is a serious point I want to make out of all this!!!

Good question and better than several other making false conclusions and wearing out their keyboards attacking the straw man.

First, I’m not convinced I want to do this, but I am looking into the feasibility mostly as a curiosity but plausible if it turns out to be doable.

‘Why’ would be because our government is only using these programs to encourage people out of the work force and into dependency so they can control them or buy them. The intent is to break the population down into those whom they can convince not to work and those whom they can trick into thinking they are helping the less fortunate. Both groups far underestimate the true value of those on so called welfare. This does not actually help any one and actually hurts those who are involved without knowing the true purpose. On the other side is a small minority of higher end producers, who are being exploited for the resources they are able to produce.

As time has gone on, these programs have obviously not made the problem of poverty go away. Poverty has gone away because producers have made such abundant recourses available. Instead of acknowledging the reduction of need, they have just kept upping the threshold of poverty. It has now gotten to the point that people on various benefit programs are making more than what the economy can support. and more than what an average entry level worker can make in a regular job. And there seems to be no end in sight with Obamacare as the newest wealth redistribution scheme, we see that the trend is not going to end up soon. We also see a growing trend in the destruction of individuals ability to depend on traditional private sources of support. The government has destroyed the institution of a marriage as a bread winner and a caretaker by taking the breadwinner’s money then dolling it out to the caretakers. As such there are plenty of women with children who are getting the resources I have earned and should be going to my wife and my children. They are no more needy than my wife and have no more of a moral claim on my income than my wife. While I am struggling with day to day expenses and trying to figure out how to pay for my children’s college, those who choose to not take care of themselves are getting free college for their kids. We now see them getting health care benefits subsidized by the rest of us simply because they have not made the effort to take care of themselves.

I’ve come to the conclusion that this is not just a case of a few abled body people slipping through the cracks, it is the systematic reality of our times. I believe that in the future we will have a wave of families that will transition to undocumented marriages in order to comply with government rules for getting basic benefits. If there is such a trend, the government will likely react. So I would like to get the information to figure out how to stay ahead of the pack.

 

[royal_archer]

OP, I’d like you to sit back for a moment and think about why are you so upset at other people who abuse the welfare system. Its because you know very well that the point of the welfare system, its purpose, is to help those truly in need.

I disagree, I believe that the sole point of the system is to buy votes and give those in control a mechanism for exerting more control. If they wanted to actually help people they would be working to make those individuals more self sufficient.

 

[royal_archer]

You are the one who brought up that you are looking at a property to be a vacation/retirement home. Yes, a bunch of people misunderstood you, but saying that you want a vacation home is hardly a lie. You have admitted multiple times that you are thinking about getting a second property and have even admitted to thinking of this property as a vacation home. You have actually said this.

Do you understand the difference between home and property? Please read this more carefully and pay attention to the specific words chosen.

 

[royal_archer]

Also, OP, just so you know, the fact that you divorced your wife legally for the sole purpose of finding a legal loophole that would allow your wife to receive welfare/disability is absolutely a relevant piece of information. You claimed earlier you would inform them of all relevant information, does this mean that you intend to make sure they know that your divorce is only a farce used to get around the technicalities of the law as written?

I’ve said all along that if we did anything it would be in full compliance with the law. How about calling it an “undocumented marriage”

 

[royal_archer]

We still have to pay thousands of dollars to the IRS every year. Believe me, I would rather pay the taxes so that people (especially children) can have medical insurance. I think it sure beats using the money to kill people in Iraq or Afghanistan. Who knows, maybe there will even be fewer abortions because women who have medical insurance where maternity care is a requirement will have one less reason to be desperate.

If it were actually going to people in legitimate need that would be one thing but I believe that the majority is going to people who have sold out to the system and are just trading their votes for the current administration for money.
Also, think about the number of Americans killed here because of the culture of welfare where instead of working, many Americans are raised in an environment where they have a lot of free time on their hand and an entitlement attitude. Its been said that some of our inner cities are more dangerous than combat zones in the Middle East.

I’m sorry this post is so long, and I hope the guy who started this thread doesn’t divorce his wife, but he really does have a good point. Married people can end up paying more for certain things, and it really isn’t fair.

It would not be a divorce in the traditional sense, if anything it would be just nullifying the formal paperwork.

 

[royal_archer]

I believe people should be married and not divorce over finances- if that is un-American than I am un American.

Then why are you advocating for a system that financially punishes those who are married?

I believe that people should care for their fellow men, and not have their sole goal be to accumulate wealth. If that is un American then I am un american.

People should care for those who need it, not funnel half of their income to politicians so they can use it to buy votes.

Ah yes the “I cant justify this morally, scripturally, legally so I will just tell you not to judge me argument” I am not judging anyone, I am trying to clearly articulate how this person is wishing to act against the law, against the church, and against morality as defined by our faith.

No I have been very clear that anything I intend to do would be within the law. why do you think I have been searching for information on the relevant laws. Through your motivations, and preconceived notions you have convinced your self of motivations that are in clear and direct conflict with what I actually said.

These are bold claims.

Please point to one point in any of my posts where I advocated “communism, socialism, totalitarianism”?

Welfare by coercion is socialism / communism. Advocating for welfare is advocating for these systems.

 

[Jon_S_1]

Then why are you advocating for a system that financially punishes those who are married?

People should care for those who need it, not funnel half of their income to politicians so they can use it to buy votes.

No I have been very clear that anything I intend to do would be within the law. why do you think I have been searching for information on the relevant laws. Through your motivations, and preconceived notions you have convinced your self of motivations that are in clear and direct conflict with what I actually said.

Welfare by coercion is socialism / communism. Advocating for welfare is advocating for these systems.

I never once advocated for welfare. Not once. It is probably the worst way to take care of people.

Unfortunately over the last 150 years, we as a culture have become selfish and self centered and we stopped helping our neighbors and community. We as a culture also stopped going to church and supporting church programs that help the poor.

I never advocated for the welfare system.

I advocated for not deceiving the system that is in place and manipulate. I advocated to not be so focused on wealth and. “Financial Security”. I advocated taking this idea to your priest for the church 's opinion in it.

 

[Book_Worm]

OP, I have to wonder why you came to this forum to ask your questions. AFAIK, there are few, if any, civil lawyers or tax accountants on this site, so it would seem much more productive to ask on another general forum where people with this type of expertise can be found.

Is it because you feel that a Catholic forum, where the members are more likely to have conservative social outlook, would be a place to validate your hatred for the current social system and your attempts to defraud the government?

Despite your citing of dubious claims promulgated by Fox-like sources, the majority of people who collect government benefits are not cheaters. The largest single group is Social Security recipients, like me. I worked hard all of my life and paid into the SS, most of the time I was working paying much higher tax rates than you are paying now. Or, like my DH, who worked as a police officer and paid not only SS but an additional 8% of his income into our state retirement plan. His SS? $258/month, because his benefit is reduced by the amount of his state pension.

My DBIL is another of the majority of moochers you cite. He’s been collecting disability benefits for 40-some years simply because his helicopter was shot down in Viet Nam and he can’t walk and support his family.

And I have also have some relatives who worked hard at factory jobs, which they lost when their companies closed. After months of a fruitless search for employment, they reluctantly accepted food stamps so they could feed their children. They finally were able to find jobs and went on to pay back into the system for many years. Unlike you, however, they were humiliated by their inability to provide for their families; they didn’t go on-line to boast of their ability to game the system.

Yes, there are people who abuse government benefits. As long as you have a system that deals with people, that will always be true. The alternative is denying help and assistance to those who truly need it, which you clearly do not.

You do not intend to dissolve your marriage and divorce. Yet, you see no problem in lying and saying that you do. I cannot see where that would ever be in line with Catholic principles. You rail against those who cheat the system and then want to join them, if not lead them.

I’m going to take a shower. I feel dirty just from reading this thread.

 

[Jon_S_1]

OP, I have to wonder why you came to this forum to ask your questions. AFAIK, there are few, if any, civil lawyers or tax accountants on this site, so it would seem much more productive to ask on another general forum where people with this type of expertise can be found.

Is it because you feel that a Catholic forum, where the members are more likely to have conservative social outlook, would be a place to validate your hatred for the current social system and your attempts to defraud the government?

Despite your citing of dubious claims promulgated by Fox-like sources, the majority of people who collect government benefits are not cheaters. The largest single group is Social Security recipients, like me. I worked hard all of my life and paid into the SS, most of the time I was working paying much higher tax rates than you are paying now. Or, like my DH, who worked as a police officer and paid not only SS but an additional 8% of his income into our state retirement plan. His SS? $258/month, because his benefit is reduced by the amount of his state pension.

My DBIL is another of the majority of moochers you cite. He’s been collecting disability benefits for 40-some years simply because his helicopter was shot down in Viet Nam and he can’t walk and support his family.

And I have also have some relatives who worked hard at factory jobs, which they lost when their companies closed. After months of a fruitless search for employment, they reluctantly accepted food stamps so they could feed their children. They finally were able to find jobs and went on to pay back into the system for many years. Unlike you, however, they were humiliated by their inability to provide for their families; they didn’t go on-line to boast of their ability to game the system.

Yes, there are people who abuse government benefits. As long as you have a system that deals with people, that will always be true. The alternative is denying help and assistance to those who truly need it, which you clearly do not.

You do not intend to dissolve your marriage and divorce. Yet, you see no problem in lying and saying that you do. I cannot see where that would ever be in line with Catholic principles. You rail against those who cheat the system and then want to join them, if not lead them.

I’m going to take a shower. I feel dirty just from reading this thread.

Thank you! :tiphat: :clapping:

 

[royal_archer]

OP, I have to wonder why you came to this forum to ask your questions. AFAIK, there are few, if any, civil lawyers or tax accountants on this site, so it would seem much more productive to ask on another general forum where people with this type of expertise can be found.

Because it has a large and diverse readership who can quickly give summaries of relevant information which could be the start of more detailed research.

Is it because you feel that a Catholic forum, where the members are more likely to have conservative social outlook, would be a place to validate your hatred for the current social system and your attempts to defraud the government?

Why are you hear if you have such disdain for us?

Despite your citing of dubious claims promulgated by Fox-like sources, the majority of people who collect government benefits are not cheaters. The largest single group is Social Security recipients, like me. I worked hard all of my life and paid into the SS, most of the time I was working paying much higher tax rates than you are paying now. Or, like my DH, who worked as a police officer and paid not only SS but an additional 8% of his income into our state retirement plan. His SS? $258/month, because his benefit is reduced by the amount of his state pension.

And I have paid into the welfare state all of my life. unlike many SS recipients, I am not hoping to get out more than I put in, I am just trying to get out some of what I put in.

My DBIL is another of the majority of moochers you cite. He’s been collecting disability benefits for 40-some years simply because his helicopter was shot down in Viet Nam and he can’t walk and support his family.

And I have also have some relatives who worked hard at factory jobs, which they lost when their companies closed. After months of a fruitless search for employment, they reluctantly accepted food stamps so they could feed their children. They finally were able to find jobs and went on to pay back into the system for many years. Unlike you, however, they were humiliated by their inability to provide for their families; they didn’t go on-line to boast of their ability to game the system.

I have lost jobs due lay offs. the last of which cam when Obama shut down the program I was working on. Although I have had to move, take pay cuts, live in remote locations, even sleep in my car, I have never gotten a dime of welfare. I am tired of people who are able bodied, who loose their jobs, not even apply for the wealth of jobs available for one excuse after another:, “the hours are too long”, “its too far away”, “I make more on unemployment”, “I don’t want to do that”; etc. etc. I have helped several people find jobs and if they follow my advice they always find jobs. the ones who do not make a complete effort, are the only ones who do not find jobs.

If these programs were temporary assistance and driven to getting people back to work, that would be one thing. But these programs are designed to foster long term dependency and long term support of the liberal politicians.

Yes, there are people who abuse government benefits. As long as you have a system that deals with people, that will always be true. The alternative is denying help and assistance to those who truly need it, which you clearly do not.

The alternative is to actually help those who need it around you. Do you feel that the American People are incapable of helping each other without strong arm politicians? I did not say I needed it yet.

You do not intend to dissolve your marriage and divorce. Yet, you see no problem in lying and saying that you do. I cannot see where that would ever be in line with Catholic principles. You rail against those who cheat the system and then want to join them, if not lead them.

It is not lying. it is merely adjusting our situation to a condition which would allow for us to get equal treatment under the law. For years I have complained about the system but At some point you have to stop complaining about things that can not be changed and adapt to society as it is. I don’t like it but things are what they are.

 

[royal_archer]

I advocated for not deceiving the system that is in place and manipulate. I advocated to not be so focused on wealth and. “Financial Security”. I advocated taking this idea to your priest for the church 's opinion in it.

While manipulating might be a fair term, deceiving is not. I do not disagree with most of what you say, just some of your apparent underlying premises.

1. We have to align with the motives of the state. This is a case where I feel the states motives are corrupt and therefore I have no moral obligation to be complacent with corrupt motives.
2. Welfare is meant to help the needy. I believe that helping the needy is just an advertising angle and is actually not the true purpose of these programs.
3. Documentation of sacraments as filed with the state has to be identical with what is recognized by the church. I WWII the church gave Jews baptismal paperwork to help them avoid the laws of the democratically elected government of Germany. while that is a totally different order of magnitude, the church has already established the basic premise that it is not a sin to provide information that is tailored to the audience. The church arrangement states that I have a moral requirement to faithful and provide for her needs if not met by other means. The secular arrangement states that we are tied financially.

 

[Jon_S_1]

While manipulating might be a fair term, deceiving is not. I do not disagree with most of what you say, just some of your apparent underlying premises.

1. We have to align with the motives of the state. This is a case where I feel the states motives are corrupt and therefore I have no moral obligation to be complacent with corrupt motives.

And do if you feel that way you have several moral options:

1. you work very hard to change and reform the culture and government
2. you do not take benefits you do not agree with
3. you stop paying taxes. ( perhaps move to another country)

But taking benefits manipulatively and fraudulently to “get your money back” is not moral. It is not your money. It is money you have willingly given to the government you reside under. It is money you could not have earned had the government not printed it, guaranteed it, distributed it, along with the safety and infrastructure provided to you to conduct business. There is no way you can separate these costs from the relatively tiny welfare contribution.

1. Welfare is meant to help the needy. I believe that helping the needy is just an advertising angle and is actually not the true purpose of these programs.

You believe this and rightly so in some cases. The options are as seen above. And the option to let people starve is not a moral one.

1. Documentation of sacraments as filed with the state has to be identical with what is recognized by the church. I WWII the church gave Jews baptismal paperwork to help them avoid the laws of the democratically elected government of Germany. while that is a totally different order of magnitude, the church has already established the basic premise that it is not a sin to provide information that is tailored to the audience. The church arrangement states that I have a moral requirement to faithful and provide for her needs if not met by other means. The secular arrangement states that we are tied financially.

Ok I am going to pretend you did not just compare helping Jews escape genocide by giving them paperwork to you wanting to have more disposable income and fun money by defrauding the government.

 

[LilyM]

I intend to operate within the law, perhaps stating that a few dozen times was not being clear enough.

As for being “right” why is it right for one lady to get a bunch of my money from the government but not for my wife to get my money?

Abortionists operate within the law too - to do so does not mean that what you are doing is morally correct.

As has been said, to deny your marriage in any way is to make a mockery of it - marriage is and must be both a public (in this case civil) and sacramental bond, to place welfare entitlements above that public commitment makes it not much of a commitment. Remember you are together for richer or poorer? Well this is the poorer, and to deny your marriage for the sake of benefits is akin to Judas denying Christ for the sake of a few pieces of silver.

As for couples who are not legally married, for the most part if they are in a stable cohabiting relationship they are treated the same as civilly married couples for welfare purposes anyway, so you are unlikely to gain by divorcing unless you physically separate.

 

[royal_archer]

And do if you feel that way you have several moral options:

1. you work very hard to change and reform the culture and government
2. you do not take benefits you do not agree with
3. you stop paying taxes. ( perhaps move to another country)

Why move, I am willing to work within the law the way it is written. I am just starting to come into acceptance of those benefits. Women who do not want a documented marriage to the father of their children getting lots of freebies from the government, may not be as bad as I thought. Maybe I should do like the Republicans did and just cave in and accept the desires of the Democrats, hook line and sinker.

But taking benefits manipulatively and fraudulently to “get your money back” is not moral. It is not your money. It is money you have willingly given to the government you reside under. It is money you could not have earned had the government not printed it, guaranteed it, distributed it, along with the safety and infrastructure provided to you to conduct business. There is no way you can separate these costs from the relatively tiny welfare contribution.

I willingly gave them money? no, payroll deductions. The government can not guarantee money without the will of the American people to work to create the wealth or with our future generations available to pay back the immense debt. Operating within the law is not fraud. And you say I have the ability to not work. And maybe we should stop talking about these as welfare and address them as services provided. Do you object to me driving on the highway? using national parks? what about other services provided? These are all services provided to those who qualify and they have set the qualifications.

You believe this and rightly so in some cases. The options are as seen above. And the option to let people starve is not a moral one.

2 THESSALONIANS Chapter 3 10 In fact, when we were with you, we instructed you that if anyone was unwilling to work, neither should that one eat.

 

[royal_archer]

Abortionists operate within the law too - to do so does not mean that what you are doing is morally correct.

As has been said, to deny your marriage in any way is to make a mockery of it - marriage is and must be both a public (in this case civil) and sacramental bond, to place welfare entitlements above that public commitment makes it not much of a commitment. Remember you are together for richer or poorer? Well this is the poorer, and to deny your marriage for the sake of benefits is akin to Judas denying Christ for the sake of a few pieces of silver.

As for couples who are not legally married, for the most part if they are in a stable cohabiting relationship they are treated the same as civilly married couples for welfare purposes anyway, so you are unlikely to gain by divorcing unless you physically separate.

yep, that is probably the biggest flaw in the plan. However, I believe that this will change over time. With Civil unions, gay “marriage”, no fault divorce, etc. etc, etc. I believe that eventually they will eventually be forced to separate the two. can you imagine a day in the not so far future where the state takes away the churches ability to witness civil marriages unless they also conduct gay marriages? if this is the case, do you think the church would hesitate to offer religious marriages outside the civil marriage system?

Most people are not open minded enough to look into the future and many are mentally stuck in the past and not able to comprehend this. But in the future when this starts becoming the norm, consider that I told you so first.