# If you think divorce financially unfair now, just wait...



## WasDecimated

So, currently I have to pay my XWW alimony because she wanted to screw other men. Now I will have to pay the taxes on the alimony as well?

I especially appreciate the example in the article where the husband is the stereotypical cheater.

Trump, GOP tax plan imposes new divorce penalty - Business Insider


----------



## EleGirl

What I'm reading is that it will only apply to new divorces that take place after this law is passed, if it's passed with this provision.

There is another way to view this.

The alimony payee will be ordered to pay less alimony to help cover the taxes. So the on hurt is going to the recipient of the alimony because they are going to receive less.


----------



## sokillme

Anyone married in 2017 should never get alimony. The best should be a few years to allow them to establish independence (like 2). This isn't the 50's everyone has the ability to work and support themselves. Child support is different. 

The problem with taxing it is that it gives the state incentive to reward it, all we need is for the state to see a monetary reason to award alimony (shivers). That is very bad. If anything with more and more women working and actually paying alimony the trend was for it going away. But we all know once the State sees a source of revenue it will last into perpetuity. In 10 years every state will have mandatory lifetime alimony for everyone. 

Was their anyone more full of crap the the GOP in the last 10 years. Everything they promised was a complete and total lie. Now they are going to tax alimony?


----------



## honcho

One of the reasons the irs wants the change is so many receiving alimony don't claim it as income on taxes. Last article I read had just over half a million returns showing alimony payments as a deduction on income and half had discrepencies between what was reported as income and deduction and over a hundred thousand of the recipients claimed zero for income half. 

Of those the irs only audited ten thousand.


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> Anyone married in 2017 should never get alimony. The best should be a few years to allow them to establish independence (like 2). This isn't the 50's everyone has the ability to work and support themselves. Child support is different.
> 
> The problem with taxing it is that it gives the state incentive to reward it, all we need is for the state to see a monetary reason to award alimony (shivers). That is very bad. If anything with more and more women working and actually paying alimony the trend was for it going away. But we all know once the State sees a source of revenue it will last into perpetuity. In 10 years every state will have mandatory lifetime alimony for everyone.
> 
> Was their anyone more full of crap the the GOP in the last 10 years. Everything they promised was a complete and total lie. Now they are going to tax alimony?


Hm, so if a woman agrees to be a SAHM and is a good wife for 25/35 years, and then her husband dumps her for a younger woman, she at age 50 or 60 should be thrown out with no way to support herself?


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> Anyone married in 2017 should never get alimony. The best should be a few years to allow them to establish independence (like 2). This isn't the 50's everyone has the ability to work and support themselves. Child support is different.
> 
> The problem with taxing it is that it gives the state incentive to reward it, all we need is for the state to see a monetary reason to award alimony (shivers). That is very bad. If *anything with more and more women working and actually paying alimony the trend was for it going away. But we all know once the State sees a source of revenue it will last into perpetuity. In 10 years every state will have mandatory lifetime alimony for everyone. *
> 
> Was their anyone more full of crap the the GOP in the last 10 years. Everything they promised was a complete and total lie. Now they are going to tax alimony?


Hyperbole much?

From what I understand, if this goes through, the new law means that the person paying the alimony will be paying as much income tax and if they were not paying alimony.

So the state/feds would not benefit from forcing everyone to pay alimony. Alimony has always been taxed... 

Right now the person paying alimony subtracts it pre-income tax. And the person receiving it pays income tax on the alimony they receive.

The proposed law has the payer paying income tax as though they did not pay alimony. Then they receiver does not pay taxes on the alimony. 

So there is no incentive to force alimony as the state makes no more if alimony is paid or not under the proposed law.

(I think the new law sucks. It's wrong IMO.)


----------



## EleGirl

honcho said:


> One of the reasons the irs wants the change is so many receiving alimony don't claim it as income on taxes. Last article I read had just over half a million returns showing alimony payments as a deduction on income and half had discrepencies between what was reported as income and deduction and over a hundred thousand of the recipients claimed zero for income half.
> 
> Of those the irs only audited ten thousand.


I think that the reason that most do not file taxes on the alimony they receive is that their total income is so low that they don't have to even file taxes, much less pay.


----------



## 2ntnuf

Pretty much like child support. If they took it out pre-tax, it would be easier. They won't. That's too much burden on the recipients. 

Sometimes, I think they are trying to get folks to stay married.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> Hm, so if a woman agrees to be a SAHM and is a good wife for 25/35 years, and then her husband dumps her for a younger woman, she at age 50 or 60 should be thrown out with no way to support herself?


I meant anyone getting married today 2017. Not someone married 25 years ago. No women or man should agree to be a SAHM or SAHD for 25 years today period. Life doesn't work like that anymore. There is no reason to stay at home for 25 years.


----------



## john117

EleGirl said:


> Hm, so if a woman agrees to be a SAHM and is a good wife for 25/35 years, and then her husband dumps her for a younger woman, she at age 50 or 60 should be thrown out with no way to support herself?


As much as it pains me to say so, yes.

Eventually women (or stay at home spouses of either gender) will get the message and explore / maintain options for employability early on. Or, dare I say, do their best to not get divorced. Easy to say, I know. 

Having the opposite available is just as bad for the working spouse.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

EleGirl said:


> Hyperbole much?
> 
> From what I understand, if this goes through, the new law means that the person paying the alimony will be paying as much income tax and if they were not paying alimony.
> 
> *So the state/feds would not benefit from forcing everyone to pay alimony. Alimony has always been taxed... *
> 
> Right now the person paying alimony subtracts it pre-income tax. And the person receiving it pays income tax on the alimony they receive.
> 
> The proposed law has the payer paying income tax as though they did not pay alimony. Then they receiver does not pay taxes on the alimony.
> 
> So there is no incentive to force alimony as the state makes no more if alimony is paid or not under the proposed law.
> 
> (I think the new law sucks. It's wrong IMO.)


The feds expect to gain in two ways:
1. Since they payer would pay the tax rather than the receiver, more stands to be paid since the payer is in a higher income bracket than the receiver.
2. Many receivers don't claim the income, and therefore the tax is not collected. This, theoretically, would fix that. 

Neither is a good reason, IMO, to push this through.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

sokillme said:


> I meant anyone getting married today 2017. Not someone married 25 years ago. No women or man should agree to be a SAHM or SAHD for 25 years today period. Life doesn't work like that anymore. There is no reason to stay at home for 25 years.


Some people believe strongly that children should have one full time parent. If the spread between oldest and youngest is at least seven years, that would account for 25 years of SAH parenting. You may not agree with the premise, but those who do should have the option of doing so without penalty.


----------



## honcho

EleGirl said:


> I think that the reason that most do not file taxes on the alimony they receive is that their total income is so low that they don't have to even file taxes, much less pay.


My ex just felt it wasn't fair to be taxed on "her money" so didn't report it. I got audited and she didn't claim it. Her lawyer also never bothered to tell her she would have to claim it as taxable income. Many lawyers around here don't tell clients tax consequences as that is tax law and not divorce law, we'll that's the excuse they use anyway. When I used to do taxes I had many clients very unhappy when they got taxes done and these little surprises would come up.


----------



## Herschel

john117 said:


> As much as it pains me to say so, yes.
> 
> Eventually women (or stay at home spouses of either gender) will get the message and explore / maintain options for employability early on. Or, dare I say, do their best to not get divorced. Easy to say, I know.
> 
> Having the opposite available is just as bad for the working spouse.


I disagree, especially in cases where people take alimony in lieu of other possibilities. My current GF was married to her doctor husband for 23 years and has received 20 years of alimony. In concept, that seems crazy, right? But what she didn't do it take half of his half of the practice. That was half hers as she supported him working and blah blah blah. The alternative could have been him crapping out on his practice and after 2 years, reformulating a new one. 

Now, that was an anecdote, but often people are stuck in their situations and have to do what is best for the family. You almost have no other choice. I ended up having to do a lot less than I should have to maintain my family before my divorce and I have been paying for it since. I don't get alimony though


----------



## EleGirl

sokillme said:


> I meant anyone getting married today 2017. Not someone married 25 years ago. No women or man should agree to be a SAHM or SAHD for 25 years today period. Life doesn't work like that anymore. There is no reason to stay at home for 25 years.


So you are saying that there should not be free choice anymore for people to chose the way they want to live?


----------



## EleGirl

honcho said:


> My ex just felt it wasn't fair to be taxed on "her money" so didn't report it. I got audited and she didn't claim it. Her lawyer also never bothered to tell her she would have to claim it as taxable income. Many lawyers around here don't tell clients tax consequences as that is tax law and not divorce law, we'll that's the excuse they use anyway. When I used to do taxes I had many clients very unhappy when they got taxes done and these little surprises would come up.


Yea there is that too. And in this case I'd hope the IRS would pay them a visit.


----------



## john117

EleGirl said:


> So you are saying that there should not be free choice anymore for people to chose the way they want to live?


As long as they understand the risk, yes.

The current system in many states is simply asking for trouble if you're a high earner married to a stay at home spouse. After 20 or 25 years of enjoying life without having to work and having everything on a platter you can basically write your own paycheck with a good divorce. 

I'm not saying it happens (outside my neighborhood at least) but the potential is too high to ignore. Two such high earners in my neighborhood went after their secretary or some such, wives divorced, and guess what. Half of a lot of money is still a lot of money.

Its not a good situation regardless of what side you're sitting.


----------



## sokillme

EleGirl said:


> So you are saying that there should not be free choice anymore for people to chose the way they want to live?


I'm giving my opinion. It's a bad idea.


----------



## Lostinthought61

Well if there is ever a reason to divorce sooner than later for men this woudl be it...my early comment on another thread still holds true, Men have never held a strong position in Marriage aggregately speaking, we service at the whim of our spouse.


----------



## Stang197

EleGirl said:


> sokillme said:
> 
> 
> 
> Anyone married in 2017 should never get alimony. The best should be a few years to allow them to establish independence (like 2). This isn't the 50's everyone has the ability to work and support themselves. Child support is different.
> 
> The problem with taxing it is that it gives the state incentive to reward it, all we need is for the state to see a monetary reason to award alimony (shivers). That is very bad. If anything with more and more women working and actually paying alimony the trend was for it going away. But we all know once the State sees a source of revenue it will last into perpetuity. In 10 years every state will have mandatory lifetime alimony for everyone.
> 
> Was their anyone more full of crap the the GOP in the last 10 years. Everything they promised was a complete and total lie. Now they are going to tax alimony?
> 
> 
> 
> Hm, so if a woman agrees to be a SAHM and is a good wife for 25/35 years, and then her husband dumps her for a younger woman, she at age 50 or 60 should be thrown out with no way to support herself?
Click to expand...




What about the spouse who never agrees about them staying home? What about the people who's spouse unilaterally quits ? What about the people who's spouse unilaterally quits and they try to keep them happy by supporting them for years and then the are unilaterally divorced. Alimony is a scam and marriage should be avoided at all costs. At least until these draconian laws are abolished. People need to take care of themselves in the event of a divorce.


----------



## 3Xnocharm

So is alimony taken out before taxes?? This just seems wrong. Also I am of the opinion (not worth much lol) that if you commit adultery, you lost your right to alimony. PERIOD.


----------



## EleGirl

3Xnocharm said:


> So is alimony taken out before taxes?? This just seems wrong. Also I am of the opinion (not worth much lol) that if you commit adultery, you lost your right to alimony. PERIOD.


What about men who commit adultery by never have to pay alimony? Maybe the law should change so that they do... If it's penalized one way, it should be penalized both ways.


----------



## naiveonedave

This is partially why no fault is garbage. Makes it too easy to throw in the towel and zero consequences for being a cheater or beater (sorry for the rhyme). 

Also lifetime alimony is irrational. At some point the person who stayed at home needs to provide for themselves.


----------



## honcho

3Xnocharm said:


> So is alimony taken out before taxes?? This just seems wrong. Also I am of the opinion (not worth much lol) that if you commit adultery, you lost your right to alimony. PERIOD.


On your tax return the person paying alimony can deduct the amount under adj to income. Say I made 10 grand paid 2 grand alimony my taxable income is 8 grand. The recipient should claim the 2 grand as adj to income so the ex makes say 6 grand, 2 grand alimony the taxable income for taxes is 8 grand. 

The system is set up on the honor system essentially banking on both parties to be honest as there is no 1099 or similar reporting requirements. Many years ago the irs had similar issues with both parties claiming kids as dependents but they have become much more vigilant about tracking that now. 

If this somehow does get pushed thru you'll probably see lawyers pushing more for uneven asset distribution's instead of alimony and then the irs will start chasing and wanting to tax that.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

EleGirl said:


> What about men who commit adultery by never have to pay alimony? Maybe the law should change so that they do... If it's penalized one way, it should be penalized both ways.


I'm not following this. Alimony payments are supposed to be need based. If a BS has the need as the result of the marriage, the alimony should be paid. 

Are you saying that the WS should pay alimony even if there is no need, because he is a W? 

I'm all for exacting punishment on waywards, but I'm not sure calling it alimony would be correct. 

Of course, all this flies in the face of "no fault." It's expedient for the courts, but doesn't do much to balance the scales of justice.


----------



## MrsHolland

naiveonedave said:


> This is partially why no fault is garbage. Makes it too easy to throw in the towel and zero consequences for being a cheater or beater (sorry for the rhyme).
> 
> Also lifetime alimony is irrational. At some point the person who stayed at home needs to provide for themselves.


We have had no fault divorce for decades in Aus, our divorce rate is decreasing. At fault divorce is barbaric IMHO


----------



## naiveonedave

MrsHolland said:


> We have had no fault divorce for decades in Aus, our divorce rate is decreasing. At fault divorce is barbaric IMHO


agree to disagree. When there is fault, there is no restitution. Maybe the alimony/CS is handled better down under?


----------



## honcho

MrsHolland said:


> We have had no fault divorce for decades in Aus, our divorce rate is decreasing. At fault divorce is barbaric IMHO


Your system also rarely has alimony longer than 2 years if it's awarded at all. Your system expects parties to become retrained and become independent in divorce, ours tends to coddle and penalize a higher wage earner.


----------



## MrsHolland

naiveonedave said:


> agree to disagree. When there is fault, there is no restitution. Maybe the alimony/CS is handled better down under?


We don't have alimony.
CS is based on how many kids, their ages, any special needs, the income of the parents, length of the marriage, future earning potential. As 50/50 co parenting is common then CS can sometimes be zero depending on the other factors.

As for fault, who is to say who's at fault. I agree cheating is a terrible thing but so is emotional abuse, neglect, laziness and a whole list of other issues how do you prove that? All I can see is that if fault has to be proven then the fight would be even uglier. Divorce is bad but going forward it must be about the kids and what is in their best interests, too many people forget that because they are so caught up in the blame game and fighting.


----------



## Yeswecan

I would say Trump would get whacked for the alimony he is paying but Trump does not pay taxes so it does not apply.


----------



## EleGirl

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I'm not following this. Alimony payments are supposed to be need based. If a BS has the need as the result of the marriage, the alimony should be paid.
> 
> Are you saying that the WS should pay alimony even if there is no need, because he is a W?
> 
> I'm all for exacting punishment on waywards, but I'm not sure calling it alimony would be correct.
> 
> Of course, all this flies in the face of "no fault." It's expedient for the courts, but doesn't do much to balance the scales of justice.


Another poster suggested using withholding alimony from someone who needs support as punishment for adultery. So I suggested that if alimony is used to punish a low income earner, it could also be used to punish the high income earner. I'm specifically addressing the person who suggesting using alimony (withholding it) as punishment.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> This is partially why no fault is garbage. Makes it too easy to throw in the towel and zero consequences for being a cheater or beater (sorry for the rhyme).
> 
> Also lifetime alimony is irrational. At some point the person who stayed at home needs to provide for themselves.


A person who was a SAHS for decades cannot then support themselves. Let's say it's woman in her late 50's who has been a SAH. How is she supposed to support herself? She might be able to get a job a minimum wage job, but not much else.


----------



## EleGirl

MrsHolland said:


> We have had no fault divorce for decades in Aus, our divorce rate is decreasing. At fault divorce is barbaric IMHO


The US divorce rate is significantly decreasing too.

Before, when divorce was only for at fault, couples who wanted a divorce would agree to lie. They would both claim that they cheated whether they cheated or not. that way they could get a divorce based on adultery. 

And in cases where there was actual fault, the innocent party would have to spend bucket loads of money to prove physical abuse and/or adultery. then it would tie up the court for months of hearings for the injured party to get a divorce. And usually if the injured party was a woman, she still could not get a divorce. The case that finally tipped the scales and started to get the no fault divorce laws passed was one of a woman who was so seriously beaten by her husband that he put her in the hospital 6 times. He almost killed her. But the court denied her a divorce because they said there was no indication that the physical abuse she was suffering was bad enough to warrant giving her a divorce.


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> A person who was a SAHS for decades cannot then support themselves. Let's say it's woman in her late 50's who has been a SAH. How is she supposed to support herself? She might be able to get a job a minimum wage job, but not much else.


here is the problem, a 50 yo SAHP for 30 years probably should not be getting a convenience D. There likely isn't enough income to support two households. Which is why no fault is problematic, IMO. Now if spouse of said person is violent or cheats, then I have a lot of sympathy.

All that said, there is not a good solution to this. A lot depends on what assumptions you bring to the table. My W was out of work for about 10 years. She now works part time at >> min wage. So I think most people sell themselves short on how much they can make. So maybe my assumption base is too optimisitc or is yours too pessimistic. Then there is the what should your post D life be like? In such a scenario, European vacations should be out the window. Expect to live in a tiny house and not eat out a lot. What I have seen is folks expect to not lose their lifestyle, while in actuality there is no way to maintain it without bringing in more income.


----------



## naiveonedave

MrsHolland said:


> We don't have alimony.
> CS is based on how many kids, their ages, any special needs, the income of the parents, length of the marriage, future earning potential. As 50/50 co parenting is common then CS can sometimes be zero depending on the other factors.
> 
> As for fault, who is to say who's at fault. I agree cheating is a terrible thing but so is emotional abuse, neglect, laziness and a whole list of other issues how do you prove that? All I can see is that if fault has to be proven then the fight would be even uglier. Divorce is bad but going forward it must be about the kids and what is in their best interests, too many people forget that because they are so caught up in the blame game and fighting.


the alimony part separates the US and Aus. 

So no one becomes a SAHP?


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

EleGirl said:


> Another poster suggested using withholding alimony from someone who needs support as punishment for adultery. So I suggested that if alimony is used to punish a low income earner, it could also be used to punish the high income earner. I'm specifically addressing the person who suggesting using alimony (withholding it) as punishment.


I understood that. 
I would agree with that poster that adultery should be grounds for alimony forfeiture
Either way

My question was a rather technical one.
I would agree with the premise that the adulturer should suffer punishment. (again whether man or woman, high income or low income). 

What I was driving at was that--if the man commits adultery and is also the high income earner, he could be prosecuted as such. But the payments would not actually be serving the purpose of alimony as the low income earning wife would already be entitled to alimony. If for some reason the wife was not entitled to alimony, it would be need based rather than fault based. If not collecting alimony, she should have recourse, possibly financial, but rather than being need based (alimony), it would be more like suing someone for pain and suffering. To me, that makes more sense than force fitting the valid complaint under the heading of alimony where it doesn't belong. Heck, even the wife receiving alimony should also be able to get extra for pain and suffering, independent of, and beyond whatever she is entitled to via alimony.


----------



## MrsHolland

naiveonedave said:


> the alimony part separates the US and Aus.
> 
> So no one becomes a SAHP?


Yes lots of SAHP here during marriage while kids are little, even then most people do some paid work. Talking about the average person not the dole bludging crew. 

My best friend is going through divorce (her husband cheated) but he is a very high wage earner $500k plus per year, she left her career behind to support him and the family, she has chosen not to work for at least a year or two while she gets herself together but in a case like this there is enough money.


----------



## MrsHolland

naiveonedave said:


> the alimony part separates the US and Aus.
> 
> So no one becomes a SAHP?


Wanted to add that the alimony issue seems ingrained in the American mind and personally I don't see it as a good thing except in situations where there is a huge disparity. I had a friend in NZ she is American, when her marriage ended the most important thing was to get alimony (spousal support they called it), she was one of the first and very rare cases in NZ where it was awarded. It really amazed me how much of her focus was on getting alimony.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> here is the problem, a 50 yo SAHP for 30 years probably should not be getting a convenience D. There likely isn't enough income to support two households. Which is why no fault is problematic, IMO. Now if spouse of said person is violent or cheats, then I have a lot of sympathy.
> 
> All that said, there is not a good solution to this. A lot depends on what assumptions you bring to the table. My W was out of work for about 10 years. She now works part time at >> min wage. So I think most people sell themselves short on how much they can make. So maybe my assumption base is too optimisitc or is yours too pessimistic. Then there is the what should your post D life be like? In such a scenario, European vacations should be out the window. Expect to live in a tiny house and not eat out a lot. What I have seen is folks expect to not lose their lifestyle, while in actuality there is no way to maintain it without bringing in more income.


According to government figures, about 15% of all divorces have alimony awarded. The average amount of alimony is about $300 a month.

So for most people who receive alimony, it's not going to cover a trip to Europe. It might cover food and some essentials.


----------



## naiveonedave

MrsHolland said:


> Wanted to add that the alimony issue seems ingrained in the American mind and personally I don't see it as a good thing except in situations where there is a huge disparity. I had a friend in NZ she is American, when her marriage ended the most important thing was to get alimony (spousal support they called it), she was one of the first and very rare cases in NZ where it was awarded. It really amazed me how much of her focus was on getting alimony.


The differences between US and Aus are so huge here, it is hard to even comprehend them. In many ways I can see how the Aus system is superior, but I really wonder how to change the US to it, as child care options are not good in many areas (and expensive) and jobs good jobs are somewhat hard to come by.


----------



## EleGirl

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> I understood that.
> I would agree with that poster that adultery should be grounds for alimony forfeiture
> Either way
> 
> My question was a rather technical one.
> I would agree with the premise that the adulturer should suffer punishment. (again whether man or woman, high income or low income).
> 
> What I was driving at was that--if the man commits adultery and is also the high income earner, he could be prosecuted as such. But the payments would not actually be serving the purpose of alimony as the low income earning wife would already be entitled to alimony. If for some reason the wife was not entitled to alimony, it would be need based rather than fault based. If not collecting alimony, she should have recourse, possibly financial, but rather than being need based (alimony), it would be more like suing someone for pain and suffering. To me, that makes more sense than force fitting the valid complaint under the heading of alimony where it doesn't belong. Heck, even the wife receiving alimony should also be able to get extra for pain and suffering, independent of, and beyond whatever she is entitled to via alimony.


My understanding is that a large part of why the states have gone to no fault divorce is the cost TO THE STATE of fault divorces. The trials that are required, with the evidential requirements drive up the cost to the local court system. They can drive the state's cost for a divorce up to millions of dollars. That's us tax payers having to pay that bill.


----------



## MrsHolland

naiveonedave said:


> The differences between US and Aus are so huge here, it is hard to even comprehend them. In many ways I can see how the Aus system is superior, but I really wonder how to change the US to it, as child care options are not good in many areas (and expensive) and jobs good jobs are somewhat hard to come by.


Our system has its flaws though. There are $$$$ owed by CS payees here and while the Govt does take some action it falls way short. Again this is about the kids and them having less an impact they they already have to deal with. The biggest section of society that are homeless is divorced women, left destitute and the kids abandoned by their fathers. It is a growing problem as is domestic abuse which is a horrendous statistic.

Child care is very exy here but families do get co payment from the Govt.

Jobs, well that is very dependent on where people live but overall our unemployment rate is good.


----------



## EleGirl

MrsHolland said:


> Wanted to add that the alimony issue seems ingrained in the American mind and personally I don't see it as a good thing except in situations where there is a huge disparity. I had a friend in NZ she is American, when her marriage ended the most important thing was to get alimony (spousal support they called it), she was one of the first and very rare cases in NZ where it was awarded. It really amazed me how much of her focus was on getting alimony.


Since alimony is paid in only about 15% of divorces and the average amount paid is $300 a month. Hence, alimony in the USA is not as big a thing for most people as it sounds like on TAM.

In NM, where I live a couple has to be married for 20 years before alimony is even considered. And the person who receives alimony is required to become self sufficient as soon as possible.

California is the famous alimony capital of the USA and they are changing. Right now Cali is moving towards making alimony rehabilitative and saying that the receiver has to become self sufficient. 

Texas has almost no alimony at all, regardless of length of marriage and other considerations.


----------



## naiveonedave

MrsHolland said:


> Our system has its flaws though. There are $$$$ owed by CS payees here and while the Govt does take some action it falls way short. Again this is about the kids and them having less an impact they they already have to deal with. The biggest section of society that are homeless is divorced women, left destitute and the kids abandoned by their fathers. It is a growing problem as is domestic abuse which is a horrendous statistic.
> 
> Child care is very exy here but families do get co payment from the Govt.
> 
> Jobs, well that is very dependent on where people live but overall our unemployment rate is good.


The foundation of the US system, at least in my view, is to prevent what I highlighted in green. Especially 20 - 40 years ago. The breadwinner (usually the man) would get next to no custody, reasonable to higher than reasonable CS and alimony. In some cases, not enough $ to live on. That is changing (Ele will say has changed), but in a single working household, the main bread winner usually comes out much worse off than the SAHP.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

EleGirl said:


> My understanding is that a large part of why the states have gone to no fault divorce is the cost TO THE STATE of fault divorces. The trials that are required, with the evidential requirements drive up the cost to the local court system. They can drive the state's cost for a divorce up to millions of dollars. That's us tax payers having to pay that bill.


Indeed, it is a measure of expedience, not one of justice.


----------



## honcho

EleGirl said:


> My understanding is that a large part of why the states have gone to no fault divorce is the cost TO THE STATE of fault divorces. The trials that are required, with the evidential requirements drive up the cost to the local court system. They can drive the state's cost for a divorce up to millions of dollars. That's us tax payers having to pay that bill.


It will never happen but the court billing hours/costs should be the responsibility of the people wanting the divorce and not the tax payers. Civil and divorce cases everyone acts like it all free and it's not. Make the parties responsible for the costs and you will see fast, much easier divorces instead of the months of endless conference calls, pretrial hearings etc etc all making lawyers rich, clients poor and untold tax dollars wasted.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> The foundation of the US system, at least in my view, is to prevent what I highlighted in green. Especially 20 - 40 years ago. The breadwinner (usually the man) would get next to no custody, reasonable to higher than reasonable CS and alimony. In some cases, not enough $ to live on. That is changing (Ele will say has changed), but in a single working household, the main bread winner usually comes out much worse off than the SAHP.


I divorced my son's father 21 years ago. At that time there was no alimony in NM until after 20 years of marriage. 50/50 custody was the court norm at that time.... 21 years ago.

What you are talking about is from a time a lot more than 20 years ago.

I absolutely believe that all women should have a way to support themselves and not rely on a man. I learned that lesson the hard way has have a lot of the women I know. 

I also believe that children need their fathers and mothers equally after the first year or so of life. So I'm a huge proponent of 50/50 custody. I also believe that if one parent is clearly a better parent and the other is a risk to the child, then the bad parent should get very little time with the child and in some cases only supervised visitation.

There was a time, prior to about 1940 that when a woman married all of her assets transferred to her husband. He had to right to divorce her and throw her on the street with nothing. And he got 100% custody of the children That was the law for centuries. So the laws changed to give women some rights in divorce and to their own children. And now that women can actually get an education and have a good, well paid career, the laws are changing again. this is why only 15% of divorces end up with alimony being awarded.... because women can now support themselves. 

Laws change slowly, it's the nature of a legal system.


----------



## EleGirl

honcho said:


> It will never happen but the court billing hours/costs should be the responsibility of the people wanting the divorce and not the tax payers. Civil and divorce cases everyone acts like it all free and it's not. Make the parties responsible for the costs and you will see fast, much easier divorces instead of the months of endless conference calls, pretrial hearings etc etc all making lawyers rich, clients poor and untold tax dollars wasted.


The only problem with this is what happens when a person has a real good solid reason for a divorce but not the money to pay for the legal case? With the no-fault divorce they don't have to prove that their spouse is cheating and/or beating them, or whatever horrible things people do. They can just get a divorce and not have to prove to the level required for evidence that they have been harmed in the marriage. They can just leave the marriage and move on with their life. 

Now if someone wants to drag all their marriage crap to court and prove whatever it is they want to prove, more power to them. Let them pay for the court fees, and the legal fees. Yep I agree.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

If one side is found to be at fault, they could be made to pay the court/legal fees of the offended spouse.

If the party who didn't have the financial means to pay court costs had a strong case, lawyers would be willing to take the case on a contingent basis (just like personal injury or workmans comp cases). That would even the playing (at least somewhat) financially. The offended party wouldn't be forced to remain in an unfaithful marriage or take an inadequate settlement due to lack of representation due to lack of income.


----------



## bkyln309

I dont believe women should get alimony and I am a woman. Maybe a lump sum to help them get on their feet. But a lifetime of payment. No. If you had the ability to be a SAHM while married, great. But you no longer can do that as a single, its time to work. I see too many women want to stay as a SAHM even though they are divorced. Sorry but that ship has sailed. Time to get out and work.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

bkyln309 said:


> I dont believe women should get alimony and I am a woman. Maybe a lump sum to help them get on their feet. But a lifetime of payment. No. If you had the ability to be a SAHM while married, great. But you no longer can do that as a single, its time to work. I see too many women want to stay as a SAHM even though they are divorced. Sorry but that ship has sailed. Time to get out and work.


If a couple mutually decided that having a full time stay at home parent was what they wanted for their children, divorce would not/should not change that. If anything, the disruption of a divorce would add to the desire to provide that kind of continuity in their children's lives. 

Now once the last junior is old enough to be reasonably self sufficient, that would be a time for such a couple to discontinue alimony.


----------



## bkyln309

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> If a couple mutually decided that having a full time stay at home parent was what they wanted for their children, divorce would not/should not change that. If anything, the disruption of a divorce would add to the desire to provide that kind of continuity in their children's lives.
> 
> Now once the last junior is old enough to be reasonably self sufficient, that would be a time for such a couple to discontinue alimony.



NO that was your married deal. Now you are not partnered together, you have a new gig. You need to be the provider. Its like moving to a new job but still expecting the old company's terms of agreement. Kids dont need a SAHM. Its nice with two people if you can swing it. But you are now on your own, you need to be the sole provider. Asking your ex to finance it honestly is ridiculous. Talking about an entitled attitude.

Im not talking child support but spousal support. Your ex may support the kids but you must go out and support yourself.


----------



## Stang197

You should be able to have a no fault divorce but if you want alimony there should be a proven fault...period.


----------



## Rick Blaine

...


----------



## Rick Blaine

sokillme said:


> Anyone married in 2017 should never get alimony. The best should be a few years to allow them to establish independence (like 2). This isn't the 50's everyone has the ability to work and support themselves. Child support is different.
> 
> The problem with taxing it is that it gives the state incentive to reward it, all we need is for the state to see a monetary reason to award alimony (shivers). That is very bad. If anything with more and more women working and actually paying alimony the trend was for it going away. But we all know once the State sees a source of revenue it will last into perpetuity. In 10 years every state will have mandatory lifetime alimony for everyone.
> 
> Was their anyone more full of crap the the GOP in the last 10 years. Everything they promised was a complete and total lie. Now they are going to tax alimony?


With you most of the way up to the last paragraph, and there is truth in that too. But...our national debt rose 84% ($7.4 trillion) under President Obama.

There are cases where spousal support is just. For example, the good wife who supports her husband and family through medical school. Then the doctor dumps her for a hot new babe. Repugnant....


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

bkyln309 said:


> NO that was your married deal. Now you are not partnered together, you have a new gig. You need to be the provider. Its like moving to a new job but still expecting the old company's terms of agreement. *Kids dont need a SAHM. * Its nice with two people if you can swing it. But you are now on your own, you need to be the sole provider. Asking your ex to finance it honestly is ridiculous. Talking about an entitled attitude.
> 
> Im not talking child support but spousal support. Your ex may support the kids but you must go out and support yourself.


But it wasn't just a married deal. It was a parenting deal. Even after divorce, the parenting must go on. 

What I bolded in your statement is not a universally shared belief. You are projecting your position onto everyone. For those who believe otherwise, the divorce does not change that belief. For them, it's not about "entitlement," but rather how they wish to parent their children, whether under the same roof or not. 

Nothing about a divorce changes this, whether or not you agree with the basic premise.


----------



## bkyln309

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> But it wasn't just a married deal. It was a parenting deal. Even after divorce, the parenting must go on.
> 
> What I bolded in your statement is not a universally shared belief. You are projecting your position onto everyone. For those who believe otherwise, the divorce does not change that belief. For them, it's not about "entitlement," but rather how they wish to parent their children, whether under the same roof or not.
> 
> Nothing about a divorce changes this, whether or not you agree with the basic premise.


We wish for alot of things but they dont always come true. Life is not always ideal. Your old agreement is now null and void now that you are no longer together. If your ex is willing to finance his ex wife, fine but most shouldn't have to because their ex is living in their ideology. Remember this is spousal support NOT child support. 

So if they were a single mom and believed in SAHM only, how would that happen? Would I magically get supported by the SAHM gods? The reality is you must work to support yourself. 

The children are supported under child support. You should not being supported as a grown adult under spousal support. What example are you setting for your kids that you wont work to provide for your own needs? What if your ex died and your "cash flow" was cut off. What would you do? You might have to work. And guess what your kids would be just fine.


----------



## NextTimeAround

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> Some people believe strongly that children should have one full time parent. If the spread between oldest and youngest is at least seven years, that would account for 25 years of SAH parenting. You may not agree with the premise, but those who do should have the option of doing so without penalty.


interesting thought. Think of all the religious groups that would get hit by this. Who would be able to home school their children if all parents are expected to work full time?


----------



## NextTimeAround

naiveonedave said:


> This is partially why no fault is garbage. Makes it too easy to throw in the towel and zero consequences for being a cheater or beater (sorry for the rhyme).
> 
> Also lifetime alimony is irrational. At some point the person who stayed at home needs to provide for themselves.


I understand that the state of CA stopped. A friend's mother got divorced just before the new law. Sadly, my friend's father was a sleaze and serial adulterer. The mother deserves every penny.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

bkyln309 said:


> We wish for alot of things but they dont always come true. Life is not always ideal. If the new arrangement (maintaining two households rather than one) doesn't allow for this arrangement, then yes, the previous SAH parent will have to work. Your old agreement is now null and void now that you are no longer together. Maybe so, maybe not. It depends on what the old agreement was and what was the underlying basis for that agreement. If the primary driver was an agreement that there be a full time parent, the divorce doesn't change that. If your ex is willing to finance his ex wife, fine but most shouldn't have to because their ex is living in their ideology. By 'their' do you mean the SAH's individual ideology (which isn't "their at all as their is plural not singular) or do you mean "their" in the true sense of the word as in what the two of them share? If the former, then you would be right, if the latter, then again, the divorce changes nothing. Remember this is spousal support NOT child support.
> 
> So if they were a single mom and believed in SAHM only, how would that happen? Would I magically get supported by the SAHM gods? The reality is you must work to support yourself. False equivalency. Anyone who started out as a SAHM could have no such prior agreement.
> 
> The children are supported under child support. You should not being supported as a grown adult under spousal support. What example are you setting for your kids that you wont work to provide for your own needs? This comes back to whether or not the parents believe in there being a full time parent. If that's what they believe, then they would be acting in accordance with their beliefs and as long as everyone is fed/housed/clothed, there's nothing wrong with that. What if your ex died and your "cash flow" was cut off. What would you do? You might have to work. And guess what your kids would be just fine. And the SAH would cross that bridge in the unlikely event that it actually occurred. An unlikely "what if" is a poor basis for justifying such a position. Really, you're projecting your personal beliefs with every bit of zealotry as any SAHM who would shame other women for working when they have kids.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

NextTimeAround said:


> interesting thought. Think of all the religious groups that would get hit by this. Who would be able to home school their children if all parents are expected to work full time?


And not just religious groups. I know agnostics who home school.


----------



## EleGirl

bkyln309 said:


> I dont believe women should get alimony and I am a woman. Maybe a lump sum to help them get on their feet. But a lifetime of payment. No. If you had the ability to be a SAHM while married, great. But you no longer can do that as a single, its time to work. I see too many women want to stay as a SAHM even though they are divorced. Sorry but that ship has sailed. Time to get out and work.


About 30% of married women do not work.

About 15% get any alimony at all.

Average alimony is $300 a month.

So few woman are getting alimony and even fewer are actually being supported by alimony.


----------



## samyeagar

Rocky Mountain Yeti said:


> But it wasn't just a married deal. It was a parenting deal. Even after divorce, the parenting must go on.
> 
> What I bolded in your statement is not a universally shared belief. You are projecting your position onto everyone. For those who believe otherwise, the divorce does not change that belief. For them, it's not about "entitlement," but rather how they wish to parent their children, whether under the same roof or not.
> 
> Nothing about a divorce changes this, whether or not you agree with the basic premise.


However, the decision to have a SAHP is most often predicated on being able to support it financially. No matter how strongly a couple may "believe" in it, if the income isn't there to support it, it is almost certainly not going to happen.

After the divorce, the financials have entirely changed. There are now two households to support. It is very unlikely that the single income will be able to support both households, yet many courts hand down orders that force just that scenario if one parent decides they want to continue to be a SAHP.

Yes, divorce law varies widely based on state and jurisdiction, but for many of us, myself included, the national numbers such as 15%, and $300 are meaningless. I happen to live in a state with rather draconian laws when it comes to spousal maintenance, on top of judges having broad latitude in custody awards, while the laws here are gender neutral, the application is not. Women in general, and mothers in particular are favored in my state.

In the case of my divorce from my SAHM ex wife with three kids, the alimony award, and division of marital debt, as well as requirements to maintain insurances on the children, as well as ex wife, yes, you read that right, I was required to keep health insurance on my ex wife...the monetary value of her new household compensation package, including child support after taxes totaled right at 52,000 per year. I was earning 64,000 gross.

That was not due to having a bad lawyer or anything like that. We tried a change of venue to a more favorable county and it was shot down. My own investigation into case law for that county actually revealed that in some ways, I got a good deal especially in that the alimony award was not a lifetime award.

At the time we got divorced, we had been married 17 years, our youngest child was entering junior high. By her choice, and not at my urging, she had not worked a day during our entire marriage, even though once the kids were fully in school, I did urge her to go to work, or school, or anything really. She refused. She ended up in an affair with my youngest's teacher.

Again, my situation was not an anomaly in that jurisdiction, and if I had waited a few more years to get divorced, new laws regarding the alimony formula would have made things much worse for me than what I ended up with.

In hindsight, and in light of her NPD diagnosis, I never should have married her, nor should I have accepted the situation as it continued on. That was my mistake, and one I paid dearly for. Oh, and five years out from the divorce, she still does not have a degree, and still doesn't have a job. Thank god she married her affair partner, and the alimony and insurance requirements ended. She's his problem now.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

samyeagar said:


> However, the decision to have a SAHP is most often predicated on being able to support it financially. No matter how strongly a couple may "believe" in it, if the income isn't there to support it, it is almost certainly not going to happen.


Acknowledged in a subsequent post.


----------



## Not

bkyln309 said:


> We wish for alot of things but they dont always come true. Life is not always ideal. Your old agreement is now null and void now that you are no longer together. If your ex is willing to finance his ex wife, fine but most shouldn't have to because their ex is living in their ideology. Remember this is spousal support NOT child support.
> 
> So if they were a single mom and believed in SAHM only, how would that happen? Would I magically get supported by the SAHM gods? The reality is you must work to support yourself.
> 
> The children are supported under child support. You should not being supported as a grown adult under spousal support. What example are you setting for your kids that you wont work to provide for your own needs? What if your ex died and your "cash flow" was cut off. What would you do? You might have to work. And guess what your kids would be just fine.


I agree with this but have to point out that the agreement for one parent to be a SAHP puts that parent in a very bad spot. In my situation I was full time SAHM while my kids were itty bitty, about 6 years. Before and after that I worked part time at various jobs that allowed me to work around my kids school schedule and have weekends off for family time. H never would have gone for having to watch the kids over the weekend so I could work. I was never able to build a solid career that allowed me to advance and therefore earn a living wage. I like to work and would work my butt off in a mine if I had to to earn the same amount as H.

So while it's true that the original agreement becomes null and void that doesn't change the fact that one spouse now risks living in poverty due to obligations that occurred during the marriage. I don't believe this should mean alimony for life but neither do I think this should mean no post divorce spousal support at all. There has to be something to balance out the disparity in incomes, at least at first.


----------



## NextTimeAround

EleGirl said:


> There was a time, prior to about 1940 that when a woman married all of her assets transferred to her husband. He had to right to divorce her and throw her on the street with nothing. And he got 100% custody of the children That was the law for centuries. So the laws changed to give women some rights in divorce and to their own children. And now that women can actually get an education and have a good, well paid career, the laws are changing again. this is why only 15% of divorces end up with alimony being awarded.... because women can now support themselves.
> 
> Laws change slowly, it's the nature of a legal system.


I also read that a law in the UK existed well into the 1970s in which a working wife was required to turn over all her earnings to her husband......... absolutely no law as to what he was required to do with that money......

ETA: I wonder if some US states had similar laws.


----------



## bkyln309

If you kids are school age, you dont need to be home. Its a luxury not a need.


----------



## sokillme

Rick Blaine said:


> With you most of the way up to the last paragraph, and there is truth in that too. But...our national debt rose 84% ($7.4 trillion) under President Obama.
> 
> There are cases where spousal support is just. For example, the good wife who supports her husband and family through medical school. Then the doctor dumps her for a hot new babe. Repugnant....


Maybe we let them sue for that. I would be fine with that. Sue for fraud or something. Also sue your spouses affair partner. All that seems good to me. Collect taxes on the lawyers as court charges and there is your money back from the taxes you would get on alimony. The thing with suing is it's a one time fee so you can move on with your life. Now it may take you a lifetime to pay it back but you do the crime you pay the time. 

IMHO


----------



## Bananapeel

EleGirl said:


> Hm, so if a woman agrees to be a SAHM and is a good wife for 25/35 years, and then her husband dumps her for a younger woman, she at age 50 or 60 should be thrown out with no way to support herself?


Nope, she should take half his net worth then retire in Mexico and drink margaritas on the beach.


----------



## NextTimeAround

bkyln309 said:


> If you kids are school age, you dont need to be home. Its a luxury not a need.



I don't agree with that. Maintaining a household is a full time job. And it's been shown that men who have stay at home wives do better professionally, money wise included ..... because they don't have to share taking the kid to the doctor; shopping and so on with his working wife.


----------



## Bananapeel

Maintaining a household is only a full time job if you make it one. It's also a very inefficient allocation of resources/time.


----------



## musicftw07

NextTimeAround said:


> bkyln309 said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you kids are school age, you dont need to be home. Its a luxury not a need.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I don't agree with that. Maintaining a household is a full time job. And it's been shown that men who have stay at home wives do better professionally, money wise included ..... because they don't have to share taking the kid to the doctor; shopping and so on with his working wife.
Click to expand...

I'm curious where this has been shown. My career took off after I got divorced and started tending my home entirely on my own, and so did my finances. I went from living paycheck to paycheck while married to having thousands in savings a couple years post divorce.

Sure, I'm one data point. But when I compare tending to my household with my job, tending my house is far, far easier.


----------



## NextTimeAround

musicftw07 said:


> I'm curious where this has been shown. My career took off after I got divorced and started tending my home entirely on my own, and so did my finances. I went from living paycheck to paycheck while married to having thousands in savings a couple years post divorce.
> 
> Sure, I'm one data point. But when I compare tending to my household with my job, tending my house is far, far easier.


It was a survey that I saw in the UK. As for your case, did you get raises more quickly after you got a divorce or is it just that you were spending less living alone?


----------



## EleGirl

NextTimeAround said:


> I also read that a law in the UK existed well into the 1970s in which a working wife was required to turn over all her earnings to her husband......... absolutely no law as to what he was required to do with that money......
> 
> ETA:  I wonder if some US states had similar laws.


I was married in the 1970's. When interviewing for a job, I was asked if my husband agreed that a worked, if I had his permission.

When I tried up open a business, I was told that I needed a notarized letter from him giving me permission to open a business. When he opened his business, he did not need permission from me.


----------



## EleGirl

musicftw07 said:


> I'm curious where this has been shown. My career took off after I got divorced and started tending my home entirely on my own, and so did my finances. I went from living paycheck to paycheck while married to having thousands in savings a couple years post divorce.
> 
> Sure, I'm one data point. But when I compare tending to my household with my job, tending my house is far, far easier.


Do you have children who live with you and who you have to take to doctor appointments, school, etc?


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> I was married in the 1970's. When interviewing for a job, I was asked if my husband agreed that a worked, if I had his permission.
> 
> When I tried up open a business, I was told that I needed a notarized letter from him giving me permission to open a business. When he opened his business, he did not need permission from me.


Back in 2002, I had to have spousal consent in order to get a vasectomy.


----------



## NextTimeAround

My sister lived in an area in which the metro area spread out over two states. My mother said that it seem to come out of now that my sister and her then husband were going to move less than a mile over the state line. My sister had asked our mother to come look at a house that her husband wanted to buy.

And then moved state.

Fast forward 6 years and exBIL asks for a divorce. My sister learns that divorce laws are more favorable to the custodial parent in the other state. And that ex BIL had been having an affair for 6 years. He met his mistress at the hospital, paid for her nursing training through the household budget and then gave her a job as his assistant. He tried to maximize her take while minimizing his in preparation for asking for a divorce.

This has the feel of that Kathleen Turner film "Body Heat."

My sister had paid off his student loans and paid for the down payment of their first house with her trust fund.

So some men do make out very well with divorce.

ETA: But I forgot to mention, in the state that they had the divorce in, there's a law that when a married person tries to buy property, he/she needs to show a signed statement of acknowledgement from their partner. 

His cover to my sister was that even though it was a house, the zoning was such that he could turn it into a medical practice ...... like Dr. Huchstable.


----------



## musicftw07

NextTimeAround said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious where this has been shown. My career took off after I got divorced and started tending my home entirely on my own, and so did my finances. I went from living paycheck to paycheck while married to having thousands in savings a couple years post divorce.
> 
> Sure, I'm one data point. But when I compare tending to my household with my job, tending my house is far, far easier.
> 
> 
> 
> It was a survey that I saw in the UK. As for your case, did you get raises more quickly after you got a divorce or is it just that you were spending less living alone?
Click to expand...

A combination of both. At first, it was because I was spending less living alone. Then after a year, I got a promotion. And then a year later I got yet another promotion, and about two years after that I secured an even better job with a different organization.


----------



## musicftw07

EleGirl said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> I'm curious where this has been shown. My career took off after I got divorced and started tending my home entirely on my own, and so did my finances. I went from living paycheck to paycheck while married to having thousands in savings a couple years post divorce.
> 
> Sure, I'm one data point. But when I compare tending to my household with my job, tending my house is far, far easier.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have children who live with you and who you have to take to doctor appointments, school, etc?
Click to expand...

Yes. My XWW and I share 50/50 custody of our daughter. She has always had a dude living with her (she's now on dude #2) whereas I've always been a bachelor. I take her to and from day care, doctor's and dentist's apps, and her gymnastics all on my own when they fall within my weeks.


----------



## Rocky Mountain Yeti

Military is where divorce can get really unfair.

The feds granted the states the authority to require 50% of a retired military member's retirement pension to go directly to the ex spouse.

_Even if the divorce took place prior to the retirement._

The ultimate rules vary from state to state but the typical scenario is that, if married more than 10 years, a state will require 50% of each retirement pension check go directly to the ex spouse. This can result in granting support in perpetuity to someone who was with you scarcely half of your military career let alone any other portion of your life. 

Horror story:
I have a buddy whose wife divorced him before the law described above passed. She then sough him out for reconciliation and remarriage. Funny thing, she did this shortly after the law was passed. Hmmmm....

Of course, the fool went for it.

Then, after the two marriages together added up to 10 years, she ditched him again.


----------



## musicftw07

samyeagar said:


> EleGirl said:
> 
> 
> 
> I was married in the 1970's. When interviewing for a job, I was asked if my husband agreed that a worked, if I had his permission.
> 
> When I tried up open a business, I was told that I needed a notarized letter from him giving me permission to open a business. When he opened his business, he did not need permission from me.
> 
> 
> 
> Back in 2002, I had to have spousal consent in order to get a vasectomy.
Click to expand...

Are you... Are you joking? (Please tell me you're joking.)


----------



## michzz

EleGirl said:


> A person who was a SAHS for decades cannot then support themselves. Let's say it's woman in her late 50's who has been a SAH. How is she supposed to support herself? She might be able to get a job a minimum wage job, but not much else.


Key point should be if the spouse was faithful or not. If not faithful? Lie in the bed you made.

Otherwise? I can see the argument.


----------



## samyeagar

musicftw07 said:


> Are you... Are you joking? (Please tell me you're joking.)


Nope, not joking.


----------



## musicftw07

samyeagar said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Are you... Are you joking? (Please tell me you're joking.)
> 
> 
> 
> Nope, not joking.
Click to expand...

As of 2002, a woman can unilaterally have an abortion without even consulting the father, but a man can't even get a vasectomy without his wife's consent?

That's twisted. My body, my choice.


----------



## NextTimeAround

musicftw07 said:


> As of 2002, a woman can unilaterally have an abortion without even consulting the father, but a man can't even get a vasectomy without his wife's consent?
> 
> That's twisted. My body, my choice.


I understand there are some states where the father can block the abortion. I think it was Samantha Bee who did a study on women who were raped but were still required to bring the child to term.


----------



## MJJEAN

musicftw07 said:


> Are you... Are you joking? (Please tell me you're joking.)



I knew he wasn't joking. In my state a wife has to have her husband's signature to get a tubal ligation. A husband does NOT have to get his wife's signature to have a vasectomy. 

Thankfully, most medical professionals are willing to look the other way when it comes to signatures for tubals. I got my tubal after my exH and I were separated, but before we divorced. The staff at my ob/gyn's office let me forge his signature so I could have the surgery.


----------



## Not

musicftw07 said:


> As of 2002, a woman can unilaterally have an abortion without even consulting the father, but a man can't even get a vasectomy without his wife's consent?
> 
> That's twisted. My body, my choice.


When my H got a vasectomy I had to sign an acknowledgement form, not a consent form. Men can lie and say they're single and get a vasectomy if they want, easy peasy. I think the acknowledgment form is protection for doctors against pissed off wives who don't want their men getting vasectomies because I'm sure that does happen.


----------



## samyeagar

MJJEAN said:


> I knew he wasn't joking. In my state a wife has to have her husband's signature to get a tubal ligation. A husband does NOT have to get his wife's signature to have a vasectomy.
> 
> Thankfully, most medical professionals are willing to look the other way when it comes to signatures for tubals. I got my tubal after my exH and I were separated, but before we divorced. The staff at my ob/gyn's office let me forge his signature so I could have the surgery.


 And in my state, it was the exact opposite...tubal, no consent necessary. And I did the same thing...forged her signature. My body, my choice as to whether or not I father any more children.


----------



## Thor

EleGirl said:


> A person who was a SAHS for decades cannot then support themselves. Let's say it's woman in her late 50's who has been a SAH. How is she supposed to support herself? She might be able to get a job a minimum wage job, but not much else.


The lady I'm dating is in such a situation. She was the agreed upon SAHM of a very high earning corporate executive. She was integral to his ability to earn, and played the part of the executive wife. Then he decided to start banging younger women like his secretary.

So now this lady is divorced and without a significant work history or current education. She is getting good alimony for a number of years while she gains marketable skills. But she'll never ever be near the financial situation her exH will enjoy.

In some cases, alimony is certainly justified. In most cases? No I don't think it is.


----------



## marriageontherocks2

This is why men getting married today is insane.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> Back in 2002, I had to have spousal consent in order to get a vasectomy.


I'll bet that your wife would have also needed your consent to have her tubes tied.

Requiring consent is not the problem. Requiring it for only one spouse is the problem.

ETA:

Tubal ligation, sometimes referred to as female sterilization, is a permanent birth control procedure that may involve tying the fallopian tubes, closing them or making an incision in them. Tubal ligation is more than 99 percent effective at preventing pregnancy, but access to this procedure may be limited by hospital policies or legal restrictions.

Spousal Consent Laws

In the past, both state governments and hospitals often required spousal consent for voluntary sterilization. However, in the 1970s a number of women challenged these requirements in court and generally prevailed. According to the book "Fit to Be Tied" by Rebecca M. Kluchin, courts found in favor of the women in most of these cases. In the case of Ponter vs. Ponter, the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that women had the constitutional right to seek a tubal ligation without spousal consent. Federal courts have ruled state spousal consent laws unconstitutional, but the United States Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue, so it cannot be considered completely resolved.


Federal Policy

Federal government policy according to the Office of Population Affairs is that female sterilization procedures do not require the consent of the spouse. Any family planning program funded by the federal government is required to adhere to state laws on consent except for laws requiring spousal consent for sterilization, as these are held to be unconstitutional. The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover tubal ligation, but does not require doctors to perform the procedure against their own judgment.

Spousal Consent Policies

Despite federal court rulings against spousal consent laws, some hospitals still have policies against performing the procedure without the signed consent of both spouses. Publicly owned hospitals are not legally allowed to maintain such a policy, but private hospitals are. Despite the illegality of spousal consent policies at public hospitals, doctors may still refuse to perform the procedure, especially if the woman requesting it is young or has not yet had children.

Continuing Barriers

Although most states no longer have spousal consent laws on the books and any remaining laws may be unconstitutional, sterilization is still difficult to access in a number of states because of other regulations. Some states require waiting periods before a tubal ligation may be performed. Others protect doctors and hospitals from being forced to perform the procedure against their judgment. A doctor or hospital determined to obtain spousal consent before performing a tubal ligation might be protected under these laws, but courts have repeatedly found that tubal ligation does not require spousal consent.

https://oureverydaylife.com/married-woman-need-her-husbands-consent-her-tubes-tied-29832.html

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12257282


----------



## musicftw07

NextTimeAround said:


> musicftw07 said:
> 
> 
> 
> As of 2002, a woman can unilaterally have an abortion without even consulting the father, but a man can't even get a vasectomy without his wife's consent?
> 
> That's twisted. My body, my choice.
> 
> 
> 
> I understand there are some states where the father can block the abortion. I think it was Samantha Bee who did a study on women who were raped but were still required to bring the child to term.
Click to expand...

That's also twisted. I am ardently pro-choice, so I'm not trying to turn this into an abortion debate.

On the national stage, we hear "my body my choice" on a regular basis. When it comes time for a man to make a reproductive decision about his body, in the case I was quoting, a man didn't have that same right. That's what caused my bull**** detector to go off.

I hold the opinion that any adult human should be able to legally make any reproductive choice they wish without the consultation of anyone else.


----------



## EleGirl

NextTimeAround said:


> My sister lived in an area in which the metro area spread out over two states. My mother said that it seem to come out of now that my sister and her then husband were going to move less than a mile over the state line. My sister had asked our mother to come look at a house that her husband wanted to buy.
> 
> And then moved state.
> 
> Fast forward 6 years and exBIL asks for a divorce. My sister learns that divorce laws are more favorable to the custodial parent in the other state. And that ex BIL had been having an affair for 6 years. He met his mistress at the hospital, paid for her nursing training through the household budget and then gave her a job as his assistant. He tried to maximize her take while minimizing his in preparation for asking for a divorce.
> 
> This has the feel of that Kathleen Turner film "Body Heat."
> 
> My sister had paid off his student loans and paid for the down payment of their first house with her trust fund.
> 
> So some men do make out very well with divorce.
> 
> ETA: But I forgot to mention, in the state that they had the divorce in, there's a law that when a married person tries to buy property, he/she needs to show a signed statement of acknowledgement from their partner.
> 
> His cover to my sister was that even though it was a house, the zoning was such that he could turn it into a medical practice ...... like Dr. Huchstable.


A bit like my situation. I paid for medical school for my ex and supported him through medical school and residency. He paid our bills... so he paid his mother's and his father's mortgages (2 separate houses) which he inherited when they passed away. He also moved a few hundred thousand of my income into accounts in his mother's name. In my state, the court did not care about any of this. He made out like a fat cat.

But if you hear him talking about it, he'll fill your ear with how I ripped him off with child support. His income more than tripled from his pre-medical school income an electrical engineer. He had 2 homes and that huge savings in his mother's name. But he got ripped off. Yea right.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> I'll bet that your wife would have also needed your consent to have her tubes tied.
> 
> Requiring consent is not the problem. Requiring it for only one spouse is the problem.
> 
> ETA:
> 
> Tubal ligation, sometimes referred to as female sterilization, is a permanent birth control procedure that may involve tying the fallopian tubes, closing them or making an incision in them. Tubal ligation is more than 99 percent effective at preventing pregnancy, but access to this procedure may be limited by hospital policies or legal restrictions.
> 
> Spousal Consent Laws
> 
> In the past, both state governments and hospitals often required spousal consent for voluntary sterilization. However, in the 1970s a number of women challenged these requirements in court and generally prevailed. According to the book "Fit to Be Tied" by Rebecca M. Kluchin, courts found in favor of the women in most of these cases. In the case of Ponter vs. Ponter, the New Jersey Superior Court ruled that women had the constitutional right to seek a tubal ligation without spousal consent. Federal courts have ruled state spousal consent laws unconstitutional, but the United States Supreme Court has never ruled on this issue, so it cannot be considered completely resolved.
> 
> 
> Federal Policy
> 
> Federal government policy according to the Office of Population Affairs is that female sterilization procedures do not require the consent of the spouse. Any family planning program funded by the federal government is required to adhere to state laws on consent except for laws requiring spousal consent for sterilization, as these are held to be unconstitutional. The Affordable Care Act requires insurers to cover tubal ligation, but does not require doctors to perform the procedure against their own judgment.
> 
> Spousal Consent Policies
> 
> Despite federal court rulings against spousal consent laws, some hospitals still have policies against performing the procedure without the signed consent of both spouses. Publicly owned hospitals are not legally allowed to maintain such a policy, but private hospitals are. Despite the illegality of spousal consent policies at public hospitals, doctors may still refuse to perform the procedure, especially if the woman requesting it is young or has not yet had children.
> 
> Continuing Barriers
> 
> Although most states no longer have spousal consent laws on the books and any remaining laws may be unconstitutional, sterilization is still difficult to access in a number of states because of other regulations. Some states require waiting periods before a tubal ligation may be performed. Others protect doctors and hospitals from being forced to perform the procedure against their judgment. A doctor or hospital determined to obtain spousal consent before performing a tubal ligation might be protected under these laws, but courts have repeatedly found that tubal ligation does not require spousal consent.
> 
> https://oureverydaylife.com/married-woman-need-her-husbands-consent-her-tubes-tied-29832.html
> 
> https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12257282


I understand that, and I think things have changed here to be in line and, well, legal. Back when I got my vasectomy and was informed I was going to need spousal consent, I jokingly asked my urologist if my wife would have to have my consent for a tubal, and was informed that consent was not necessary in that case. The rationale was women's safety as it relates to domestic violence.

A more recent situation that was rather eye opening for me was related to my wife's birth control. Obviously she doesn't need it because I'm fixed, but she continues on the Depo shot because it effectively eliminates her period. Well, we were out shopping before her appointment at the local Women's Health Clinic. That was going to be our last stop, so we got there and went inside. The first thing said was that I had to leave. That men were not allowed in the clinic, and I would have to wait in the car. So I went back out to the car. My wife got her shot, but when she got back into the car, she relayed how they had asked her twenty times from Sunday if she was alright, if she was safe, if she needed help, if she was there of her own volition. Again, message sent. Man=bad. I understand the bigger picture and reasoning, but it was definitely a jolt.


----------



## lifeistooshort

musicftw07 said:


> That's also twisted. I am ardently pro-choice, so I'm not trying to turn this into an abortion debate.
> 
> On the national stage, we hear "my body my choice" on a regular basis. When it comes time for a man to make a reproductive decision about his body, in the case I was quoting, a man didn't have that same right. That's what caused my bull**** detector to go off.
> 
> I hold the opinion that any adult human should be able to legally make any reproductive choice they wish without the consultation of anyone else.


I agree. I find the notion that a guy should need his wife's consent for a vasectomy to be ridiculous.

In fact, I think highly of men who don't want kids (or more kids) and take it upon themselves to get a vasectomy.

This is too often seen as a woman's responsibility.

My father, who I was very close to, once told me that he quit sleeping with my mom after my youngest sister because she wouldn't use birth control and he wasn't going to get a vasectomy.

I told him that was his problem and it was on him to deal with it if he didn't want more kids.

In many ways he had antiquated thinking. I think having 3 daughters actually modernized him a bit as he thought about what we faced.


----------



## NextTimeAround

EleGirl said:


> A bit like my situation. I paid for medical school for my ex and supported him through medical school and residency. He paid our bills... so he paid his mother's and his father's mortgages (2 separate houses) which he inherited when they passed away. He also moved a few hundred thousand of my income into accounts in his mother's name. In my state, the court did not care about any of this. He made out like a fat cat.
> 
> But if you hear him talking about it, he'll fill your ear with how I ripped him off with child support. His income more than tripled from his pre-medical school income an electrical engineer. He had 2 homes and that huge savings in his mother's name. But he got ripped off. Yea right.


I thought what one inherited during the marriage became communal property. Or this particular state does not see it that way?

How was he able to move 100K out of your account. And what reason did the judge give not to acknowledge it?


----------



## WasDecimated

EleGirl said:


> Do you have children who live with you and who you have to take to doctor appointments, school, etc?


I do...and then some. 

Maybe my situation is not common but my kids live with me 100%. I take care of everything for them including doctor and dentist appointments. Picking them up and dropping them off, school conferences...etc. I have a full time career. I come home from work, cook dinner every night, help the kids with homework, clean the house, grocery shop, do laundry, as well as all the household maintenance, lawn and snow blowing...etc. Ya, it's a busy life. But even working full time I am fully capable of doing it, and my house is a lot cleaner than when I was married.

After the divorce, custody was 50/50. My kids decided, on their own, to stay with me 100%. Why, because XWW was never home, didn't spend a dime of CS on them, and the knew they were not a priority in her life. Now she sees them whenever she can fit them into her dating schedule, about once a month for a couple hours. 

The $hitty thing is I still have to pay her thousands in alimony each month so she can be lazy. The alimony pays for her condo, car payment, insurance, utilities, and even trips with her boy friend. Does that seem fair? When we were married, after the kids were in school full time, she decided she didn't want to work full time and had no interest in going back to school. She felt that screwing OM, while I was at work, was a better use of all of her spare time. 

In the case of my XWW, being lazy and dishonest has definitely paid off.


----------



## Wolf1974

Always reading these stories reminds me how lucky I was to have leverage to avoid alimony. I did have to pay child support for a time but even that is done now. I have my kids only 50% but I think the day may be coming when they ask to live with me full time and I have money set aside to fight that court battle.

The only thing financially that took a hit was my career for a time. I wasn’t able to promote for about 7 years while my x was able to work on hers. I have been able to correct that and pull myself out of debt and get promoted, so no regrets. Being father was always more important than my work anyway.


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

For every story of a woman traded in for a younger model I say read BFF's thread. 

Alimony is a antiquated model. Especially unlimited alimony where you pay waiting for her to get married or you pay a PI and lawyer thousands to prove she is living with her boyfriend. Zero incentive to get married while she (or he ) live off the payer's work the rest of their life. 

Upon divorce assets marital assets should be spit 50/50 and 50+ SAHM who allegedly has zero skills can live on that equity and go t work like everyone else. She or he should simply live within their means like everyone else.


----------



## john117

50 50 only in case of fault. If my daughter is a neurosurgeon and marries some art type who files for divorce a dozen years later thru no fault of hers, why should the guy hit the jackpot?


----------



## Broken_in_Brooklyn

Decades ago courts got overloaded with divorces proving fault. Courts can't deal with every civil matter in human behavior. That's why they went no fault. People may not like that and may feel that it is unfair but that is the way it is now. So in your case she married him knowing that he would probably never be a big earner. While married all earnings are joint and either community property or equitable. Tell her to live in a equitable state and she gets more as she put more in.


----------

