# Alimony



## EleGirl

There is a lot of discussion of TAM about whether or not alimony should be allowed in divorce.

I think it would be interesting to hear what people think about this.


----------



## Tippy

It depends on the circumstances. At this point it doesn't really matter with the no fault divorce. It's not guaranteed and it depends on what the judge says.


----------



## anonmd

For the traditional situation where the SAHM has not had an income or much of a career for a long period of time yes, for some long but not permanent time, maybe 10 years max.

For a two career couple as long as they are actual careers as opposed to 1 career + 1 low paid service position, no - no alimony. Don't care about the differential, might go as far as a couple of years transition period but that is it.


----------



## MJJEAN

Yes, but I don't think alimony should be awarded long term. I favor giving reasonable time for the unemployed or under employed to complete a degree or certificate program and secure employment. 

Although, I am ok with lifetime alimony for those that are older and unlikely to be able to complete a program or find employment. 

I looked it up for giggles, turns out my state is one that takes into account conduct even though we aren't an at-fault state. If a spouse had an affair or a substance abuse issue, the judge can take that into account when deciding on alimony and asset division.


----------



## frusdil

In Australia we don't have any alimony at all, except in very, very rare circumstances.

The only scenario that I can think of for long term, even lifelong alimony is where one of the parents is the carer for a severely disabled child. I know myself that I would much rather my child be cared for at home wherever possible, and if my husband and I divorced and I was the breadwinner, I would happily pay him for that role, as he would me.

Anything else, even when a SAHM has not worked for years should only be short term for transition, never permanent.


----------



## Joey2k

I'm not sure what some of the choices mean, but I don't think alimony should be awarded to any able-bodied adult. If it is available it should be only in special circumstances where one partner, for one reason or another, is not capable of making a living on their own. And if they are not (capable), alimony should be very limited in duration, just long enough for the person to get some kind of degree or job training, a couple of years max.

They should not be entitled to whatever standard of living they had before the divorce.


----------



## lifeistooshort

In general I don't agree with alimony because I don't think an able bodied adult (like Joey2k said) is entitled to be supported by another adult. And that's what alimony is.

And if you consider lifetime alimony, what you have is someone who works for say 18-30 years to some degree depending on how many kids and then is guaranteed retirement. That's a heck of a deal.....working spouse doesn't get that. And in general it won't be reduced if working spouse loses their job or something else happens; why should a stay at home be shielded from the crap that life throws at all of us?

Having said that I also recognize that it's very difficult to demand someone go back to work after 20 years of not working (particularly if they're older), but I don't think it should be left to a judge's discretion. I think a legal document should be drawn up with an agreement on how long spouse will stay home (can be worded to include x amount of time for each kid) and how much they will be entitled to based on how long they're home and length of marriage. Then if someone simply refuses to go back to work they don't get extra for backing out of the agreement.

Lay it all out when everyone is getting along, and let working spouse see on paper what this is going to mean to them should the marriage end.

Then you won't have judges screwing anyone over and you won't have anything to fight over. I'm sure there will still be issues but right now it's completely subject to a judge's whim.


----------



## EleGirl

lifeistooshort said:


> In general I don't agree with alimony because I don't think an able bodied adult (like Joey2k said) is entitled to be supported by another adult. And that's what alimony is.
> 
> And if you consider lifetime alimony, what you have is someone who works for say 18-30 years to some degree depending on how many kids and then is guaranteed retirement. That's a heck of a deal.....working spouse doesn't get that. And in general it won't be reduced if working spouse loses their job or something else happens; why should a stay at home be shielded from the crap that life throws at all of us?
> 
> Having said that I also recognize that it's very difficult to demand someone go back to work after 20 years of not working (particularly if they're older), but I don't think it should be left to a judge's discretion. I think a legal document should be drawn up with an agreement on how long spouse will stay home (can be worded to include x amount of time for each kid) and how much they will be entitled to based on how long they're home and length of marriage. Then if someone simply refuses to go back to work they don't get extra for backing out of the agreement.
> 
> Lay it all out when everyone is getting along, and let working spouse see on paper what this is going to mean to them should the marriage end.
> 
> Then you won't have judges screwing anyone over and you won't have anything to fight over. I'm sure there will still be issues but right now it's completely subject to a judge's whim.


Having a pre-nup on this topic makes sense to a point. Some things cannot be anticipated so being able to amend it during the marriage out might also make sense.

Most people simply fall back on the marriage and divorce laws where they live. And these can change over time.

Also a prenup can be fought incourt and thrown out. When that happens, it defaults to the state or countries laws.


----------



## Buddy400

If there has been an agreement that one spouse would deprioritize their career for the benefit of the family and that spouse didn't want the divorce and wasn't at fault (abuse, adultery, etc.) then yes, there should be alimony. Length of the alimony would be dependent on the length of the marriage.


----------



## Sbrown

If the the spouse that works in the home chooses to do so then no. Not a dime in alimony. If the spouse that works asked the other to work in the home then yes a very limited very small alimony should be awarded. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## EleGirl

Buddy400 said:


> If there has been an agreement that one spouse would deprioritize their career for the benefit of the family and that spouse didn't want the divorce and wasn't at fault (abuse, adultery, etc.) then yes, there should be alimony. Length of the alimony would be dependent on the length of the marriage.


What is that spouse wanted the divorce because they were abused and/or cheated on?


----------



## jld

I would expect lifetime alimony in the extremely unlikely event I were ever divorced. I have been home for two decades bringing up five children, breastfeeding and homeschooling them just as my husband wanted. Those are years I could have been working and building a career. 

My willingness to follow him on foreign assignments allowed him to build his experience base and get the job he has now, while still enjoying having a family. I would think it quite unfair for that contribution to not be acknowledged.


----------



## AliceA

I think that it should be phased out in all the countries where it still occurs. The world is changing and laws should keep up with the times. The older generations have lived in a time where they were encouraged to give up all independence and become reliant solely on their spouse for money. This is no longer the case. As those generations move into retirement, so should the laws that were relevant only to them be retired. 

I was not raised to need to be reliant on someone else to live. Despite being a SAHM until my children were able to go to school I knew I would one day return to the workforce. While I never expect to get a divorce (though I imagine most don't), there is the possibility that I might outlive DH (though I hope we both live to a ripe old age), and in that event, I can and will be self sufficient.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Buddy400 said:


> If there has been an agreement that one spouse would deprioritize their career for the benefit of the family and that spouse didn't want the divorce and wasn't at fault (abuse, adultery, etc.) then yes, there should be alimony. Length of the alimony would be dependent on the length of the marriage.


I'm uncomfortable with the idea that one should have their reasons for wanting a divorce approved by someone who has no idea what went on behind closed doors. Lots of things happen in a marriage and the only two that have to live with it are the two spouses, and these things are highly subjective.

Absolutely unfair to hook alimony to who wants the divorce. That gives working spouse way more power as they make all the money so they can demand a divorce over anything, but stay at home is tied to finding a satisfactory reason.

Unacceptable power balance.


----------



## lifeistooshort

jld said:


> I would expect lifetime alimony in the extremely unlikely event I were ever divorced. I have been home for two decades bringing up five children, breastfeeding and homeschooling them just as my husband wanted. Those are years I could have been working and building a career.
> 
> My willingness to follow him on foreign assignments allowed him to build his experience base and get the job he has now, while still enjoying having a family. I would think it quite unfair for that contribution to not be acknowledged.


Yours is definitely a case for it, and I'd bet Dug would've had no issues signing a prenup agreeing to it in exchange for you being willing to home school his kids and follow him around.

Especially after a certain number of years.

You were asked, in many ways, to give up your life. That is at the heart of what alimony is for.


----------



## Joey2k

lifeistooshort said:


> I think a legal document should be drawn up with an agreement on how long spouse will stay home (can be worded to include x amount of time for each kid) and how much they will be entitled to based on how long they're home and length of marriage. Then if someone simply refuses to go back to work they don't get extra for backing out of the agreement.
> 
> Lay it all out when everyone is getting along, and let working spouse see on paper what this is going to mean to them should the marriage end.
> 
> Then you won't have judges screwing anyone over and you won't have anything to fight over. I'm sure there will still be issues but right now it's completely subject to a judge's whim.


You know, I just had a thought. Pre-nups are a good idea, but they can be a source of contention and uncomfortable to bring up, as it could be seen as a sign that one is not fully invested in the marriage and is covering their behind just in case.

What if pre-nups were mandatory? Before a marriage license was issued, you had to have a signed agreement on division of assets and whatever else? That takes the awkwardness out of it and allows people to talk about it more freely and openly without worrying one that they will upset the other, and saves headache down the road. It won't fix all issues, but it's a good start.

Just a thought.


----------



## lucy999

Alimony should be awarded for a limited amount of time in some cases. 

My 69 yo friend recently got divorced. She worked the entire 25 year marriage, and he the lion's share of it, but not all of it. He is diagnosed bipolar so there were lots of bumps along the way. They agreed he would go to school for 2 years to get his degree. The 2 years turned into 7 years (only she worked during this time). Then, when he didn't graduate, he refused to look for a job for another 2 years. She supported their household throughout this whole ordeal (no children). The plan all along was for her to retire (she retired a few years ago), and he would then support the household since he's considerably younger than she is. They would travel and do all the things they dreamed of.

She didn't ask for alimony. I told her in the beginning she should and reiterated to her all she did for their marriage, especially with his outright refusal/inability to get with the program.

Now that reality has sunk in, she wishes she asked for alimony. I believe she's entitled to it, for a limited time, in this particular scenario. He reneged on the whole deal and she's left with only her retirement/social security. So not fair.


----------



## jld

lucy999 said:


> Alimony should be awarded for a limited amount of time in some cases.
> 
> My 69 yo friend recently got divorced.
> 
> She didn't ask for alimony. I told her in the beginning she should and reiterated to her all she did for their marriage, especially with his outright refusal/inability to get with the program.
> 
> Now that reality has sunk in, she wishes she asked for alimony. I believe she's entitled to it, for a limited time, in this particular scenario. He reneged on the whole deal and she's left with only her retirement/social security. So not fair.


I don't think alimony should even be up for debate or refusal. One of the most immoral things I have seen on TAM is men in particular being encouraged to go along with a WW's guilty refusal of alimony, even after they have been married many years and have children.

I am surprised courts even allow this, considering the likelihood that these women may end up on some sort of state aid without the financial help of their ex-husbands. That just shifts the burden to the taxpayer.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## VeryHurt

There are too many factors that enter this topic. 

Sadly the majority of those "factors" are emotional and the Courts mostly dismiss "emotional" issues.


----------



## anonmd

jld said:


> I don't think alimony should even be up for debate or refusal. One of the most immoral things I have seen on TAM is men in particular being encouraged to go along with a WW's guilty refusal of alimony, even after they have been married many years and have children.
> 
> I am surprised courts even allow this, considering the likelihood that these women may end up on some sort of state aid without the financial help of their ex-husbands. That just shifts the burden to the taxpayer.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


So let's say you get married at 18 or 20, have 3 kids over the next 10 years and in year 16 or whenever you two are done. You are you, basically not worked most of the time right? Hubby certainly owes child support and that itself is going to be quite a burden in most states what with now having to support two households right? 

I personally an OK with requiring some transitional spousal support for two or three years. At that point you are 36, 37, 38 years old. Do you really think he she support you for the next 40 or 50 years? Really? You need to get a job or find another husband. 

Splitting up at 69 is a tough one. Not sure what I think about that, I could go either way I guess depending on the situation.


----------



## jld

anonmd said:


> So let's say you get married at 18 or 20, have 3 kids over the next 10 years and in year 16 or whenever you two are done. You are you, basically not worked most of the time right? Hubby certainly owes child support and that itself is going to be quite a burden in most states what with now having to support two households right?
> 
> I personally an OK with requiring some transitional spousal support for two or three years. At that point you are 36, 37, 38 years old. Do you really think he she support you for the next 40 or 50 years? Really? You need to get a job or find another husband.
> 
> Splitting up at 69 is a tough one. Not sure what I think about that, I could go either way I guess depending on the situation.


In the military you only need to be married ten years to get half of your spouse's pension. No children needed, afaik.

I think there should be some ongoing percentage of support, a return on your spouse's investment in you. I am not sure about the figures. 

It never hurts to make people think more carefully about who they are marrying. Hard to imagine someone marrying at such a young age anymore, and expecting it to last.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Joey2k

jld said:


> I don't think alimony should even be up for debate or refusal. One of the most immoral things I have seen on TAM is men in particular being encouraged to go along with a WW's guilty refusal of alimony, even after they have been married many years and have children.


Wait...what?? A woman cheats on her husband and you think he owes her spousal support (that is what WW means isn't it? I still have to look up some of the abbreviations that are used here)? He should sue her for violating their marriage contract, and for child support since a cheating spouse is probably not the best choice for primary custody.


----------



## tech-novelist

Joey2k said:


> You know, I just had a thought. Pre-nups are a good idea, but they can be a source of contention and uncomfortable to bring up, as it could be seen as a sign that one is not fully invested in the marriage and is covering their behind just in case.
> 
> What if pre-nups were mandatory? Before a marriage license was issued, you had to have a signed agreement on division of assets and whatever else? That takes the awkwardness out of it and allows people to talk about it more freely and openly without worrying one that they will upset the other, and saves headache down the road. It won't fix all issues, but it's a good start.
> 
> Just a thought.


I have proposed just this on several occasions here. There should be some predefined pre-nups that had already been adjudicated. If the parties want to change them, other custom terms could be added and adjudicated before they could get married. They could and should cover child support, property division, alimony, and any other issues that are dealt with in divorce.

Of course the divorce/child-support industrial complex would never allow this if they had a choice, as it would horn in on their racket of charging enormous fees for doing the same thing over and over.


----------



## bfree

Joey2k said:


> Wait...what?? A woman cheats on her husband and you think he owes her spousal support (that is what WW means isn't it? I still have to look up some of the abbreviations that are used here)? He should sue her for violating their marriage contract, and for child support since a cheating spouse is probably not the best choice for primary custody.


I worked with a man who divorced after 22 years of marriage. "They" had two children. The reason I put they in quotes is because it came out that she had been in a very long term affair with another man and the two kids were not the husband's. Nevertheless he was required to pay child support for the kids and alimony to the wife because she was a SAHM with no income. About a year after the judgement he tried to commit suicide, thankfully unsuccessfully.


----------



## anonmd

jld said:


> In the military you only need to be married ten years to get half of your spouse's pension. No children needed, afaik.
> 
> I think there should be some ongoing percentage of support, a return on your spouse's investment in you. I am not sure about the figures.
> 
> It never hurts to make people think more carefully about who they are marrying. Hard to imagine someone marrying at such a young age anymore, and expecting it to last.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


We disagree

I chose the young age because in the case of the couple who waits till 30+ I can't exactly wrap my mind around the wife shutting down her career forever to have children then wanting to be compensated later after the divorce. Just seems too mercenary to me. 

"Investment in you" That is rich! >

As far as the military goes, it is not the 1950's any more.


----------



## lifeistooshort

anonmd said:


> We disagree
> 
> I chose the young age because in the case of the couple who waits till 30+ I can't exactly wrap my mind around the wife shutting down her career forever to have children then wanting to be compensated later after the divorce. Just seems too mercenary to me.
> 
> "Investment in you" That is rich! >
> 
> As far as the military goes, it is not the 1950's any more.


The military is its own beast. Extremely difficult for a military spouse to have their own career with the moving around and deployments. Having been both a soldier and military spouse I can say that he military cares nothing for families and it's expected that everything revolve around the military. 

It has nothing to do with the 1950's. If you've never been a military spouse, or at least known one well, you won't understand. 

Fyi, more and more men are becoming military spouses and will benefit from the retirement as well.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## arbitrator

*Here in Texas, there is no such animal as "alimony," unless, of course, the couple have it written into the embodiment of a valid prenuptial or postnuptial agreement between the two of them!

And IMHO, any man or woman who would sign off on that, needs to have their heads checked!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Buddy400

EleGirl said:


> What is that spouse wanted the divorce because they were abused and/or cheated on?


Alimony there too although it would have to be proven).


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> I'm uncomfortable with the idea that one should have their reasons for wanting a divorce approved by someone who has no idea what went on behind closed doors. Lots of things happen in a marriage and the only two that have to live with it are the two spouses, and these things are highly subjective.
> 
> Absolutely unfair to hook alimony to who wants the divorce. That gives working spouse way more power as they make all the money so they can demand a divorce over anything, but stay at home is tied to finding a satisfactory reason.
> 
> Unacceptable power balance.


I think I must have failed to make myself clear.

If the husband is the breadwinner, the wife a SAHM, the husband wants a divorce and the wife has done nothing wrong (infidelity, mental cruelty, etc) then the wife gets alimony.

If the husband is the breadwinner, the wife a SAHM, the wife wants the divorce and the husband has done nothing wrong (infidelity, mental cruelty, etc) then the wife does not get alimony.


----------



## arbitrator

Buddy400 said:


> I think I must have failed to make myself clear.
> 
> If the husband is the breadwinner, the wife a SAHM, the husband wants a divorce and the wife has done nothing wrong (infidelity, mental cruelty, etc) then the wife gets alimony.
> 
> If the husband is the breadwinner, the wife a SAHM, the wife wants the divorce and the husband has done nothing wrong (infidelity, mental cruelty, etc) then the wife does not get alimony.


*What state is that?*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MarriedDude

jld said:


> I would expect lifetime alimony in the extremely unlikely event I were ever divorced. *I have been home for two decades bringing up five children*, breastfeeding and homeschooling them just as my husband wanted. Those are years I could have been working and building a career.
> 
> My willingness to follow him on foreign assignments allowed him to build his experience base and get the job he has now, while still enjoying having a family. I would think it quite unfair for that contribution to not be acknowledged.


This is the type of instance were I believe alimony would be in order. 

Long term marriage with children. Wife creates the home for the family. Not cool to dump her with no real means of support.


----------



## naiveonedave

MarriedDude said:


> This is the type of instance were I believe alimony would be in order.
> 
> Long term marriage with children. Wife creates the home for the family. Not cool to dump her with no real means of support.


depends. I think most SAHM undersell their potential income. Clearly they have some skills. Also, it should not be for forever, too much can change, especially when he retires. Huge change in income.

If she commits one of the 3 As (abuse, addiction, adultery) all bets are off, imo. Same if it went the other way. Of course, the courts changed to get rid of proving that, so it won't ever happen


----------



## samyeagar

Alimony laws obviously vary from state to state, and even from judge to judge. There is a lot of arbitrary variation.

In my situation, I overlooked many red flags early on in my relationship with my now ex-wife. Red flags that only became obvious in hindsight, that I have paid dearly for, that she has profited handsomely from. In my extensive case law research, in my state, my case and the resulting judgement was fairly typical.

My ex wife has never supported herself for a day in her life. She went straight from her parents house to mine. She has never held a full time job. She made the decision to not continue her education past high school. She made the decision to become a stay at home mom. My mistake was supporting her in her decisions. She is also diagnosed NPD, with all of the associated entitlement, martyr, and victim complexes that accompany that.

The initial settlement offer based on my $65,000 per year income would have given her 85% of my gross income between child support and alimony. I would have been left literally without enough to cover taxes, and the health insurance for her and the kids I was required to maintain. The lifetime alimony award she was asking for was $2,500 per month for life. She was 37, in supreme health, fully able bodied when we divorced. She also wanted half of my retirement as it stood when I retired, not where it was when we divorced. The thing is, I had no retirement savings, as in zero dollars, because her financial mismanagement left us filing for bankruptcy two years before we divorced.

After my own personal research, and talking to several attorneys, there was a very real chance my ex-wife could be awarded exactly what she was asking for. One caveat about lifetime alimony vs temporary rehabilitative alimony in my state is that a lifetime award is not automatically ended upon the recipient remarrying.

She was also seeking full custody.

The United States got rid of debtors prisons a long time ago, but they have left a loophole wide open when it comes to child support and alimony...failure to pay is not considered a debt, it is considered contempt of court...a jailable offense. Looking at the numbers, it was an inevitability that I would end up in jail for failure to pay. Not because I was being an assh0le dead beat...because there was simply not enough money for me to do what the court ordered.

She used the kids as leverage against me. Said she'd be open to negotiations if I agreed to let her have full custody. What choice did I have? There was case law in my jurisdiction indicating that awards she was seeking in similar circumstances had been given by the courts. What good would shared custody be if I still ended up in jail.

In the end, even agreeing to her having custody, I still had to spend over $20,000 just to get every other weekend, five year alimony so she can get her degree and back into the work force, and keeping my non existent retirement.

Well, as of right now, four years later, she married her affair partner, hasn't gone back to school, still has not gotten a job, and still doesn't actually have any kids at home. The youngest is 14. She still tries to demand extras from me...for the kids of course. She is the epitome of the dead beat mom.


----------



## samyeagar

I would like to add...I have absolutely no problems with providing financial support for my children. It is formulaic, with very little deviation. One thing I would like to change though is requiring the custodial recipient to also provide financially for their children. They are both the parents, so it should not be left to just one parent.


----------



## Buddy400

arbitrator said:


> *What state is that?*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The ideal state!


----------



## tech-novelist

samyeagar said:


> Alimony laws obviously vary from state to state, and even from judge to judge. There is a lot of arbitrary variation.
> 
> In my situation, I overlooked many red flags early on in my relationship with my now ex-wife. Red flags that only became obvious in hindsight, that I have paid dearly for, that she has profited handsomely from. In my extensive case law research, in my state, my case and the resulting judgement was fairly typical.
> 
> My ex wife has never supported herself for a day in her life. She went straight from her parents house to mine. She has never held a full time job. She made the decision to not continue her education past high school. She made the decision to become a stay at home mom. My mistake was supporting her in her decisions. She is also diagnosed NPD, with all of the associated entitlement, martyr, and victim complexes that accompany that.
> 
> The initial settlement offer based on my $65,000 per year income would have given her 85% of my gross income between child support and alimony. I would have been left literally without enough to cover taxes, and the health insurance for her and the kids I was required to maintain. The lifetime alimony award she was asking for was $2,500 per month for life. She was 37, in supreme health, fully able bodied when we divorced. She also wanted half of my retirement as it stood when I retired, not where it was when we divorced. The thing is, I had no retirement savings, as in zero dollars, because her financial mismanagement left us filing for bankruptcy two years before we divorced.
> 
> After my own personal research, and talking to several attorneys, there was a very real chance my ex-wife could be awarded exactly what she was asking for. One caveat about lifetime alimony vs temporary rehabilitative alimony in my state is that a lifetime award is not automatically ended upon the recipient remarrying.
> 
> She was also seeking full custody.
> 
> The United States got rid of debtors prisons a long time ago, but they have left a loophole wide open when it comes to child support and alimony...failure to pay is not considered a debt, it is considered contempt of court...a jailable offense. Looking at the numbers, it was an inevitability that I would end up in jail for failure to pay. Not because I was being an assh0le dead beat...because there was simply not enough money for me to do what the court ordered.
> 
> She used the kids as leverage against me. Said she'd be open to negotiations if I agreed to let her have full custody. What choice did I have? There was case law in my jurisdiction indicating that awards she was seeking in similar circumstances had been given by the courts. What good would shared custody be if I still ended up in jail.
> 
> In the end, even agreeing to her having custody, I still had to spend over $20,000 just to get every other weekend, five year alimony so she can get her degree and back into the work force, and keeping my non existent retirement.
> 
> Well, as of right now, four years later, she married her affair partner, hasn't gone back to school, still has not gotten a job, and still doesn't actually have any kids at home. The youngest is 14. She still tries to demand extras from me...for the kids of course. She is the epitome of the dead beat mom.


This should be required reading for any man naive enough to get married in the current legal environment in the US.

I'm waiting for the responses from those who claim that men don't have to worry that much about divorce and child support.


----------



## froggy7777

I've heard it said--Alimony--"The screwing you get for the screwing you got". Thank God I will never have to deal with that--lol.


----------



## arbitrator

Buddy400 said:


> The ideal state!


*Texas could sure stand to take a lesson from it, but our outdated Neanderthal GOP state government would never consider allowing a statuatory change in it! 

Just saying!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## arbitrator

froggy7777 said:


> I've heard it said--Alimony--"The screwing you get for the screwing you got". Thank God I will never have to deal with that--lol.


*In Texas, family court judges can arbitrarily up the ante on "child support," for punitive purposes, knowing full well that the appellants writ of appeal to the State Appellate Court will literally cost them an arm and a leg in legal fees alone!

And with absolutely no hair off of the elected presiding judge's a$$, other than for a paper reversal by the higher circuit!*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tripad

Lol

My azzhole ex cheats even on child support even though court ordered . I have to harass him for the peanut amount when I m pissed . but I heard he spends money rather freely . 

So alimony is not in my vocab .
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## tripad

MarriedDude said:


> This is the type of instance were I believe alimony would be in order.
> 
> Long term marriage with children. Wife creates the home for the family. Not cool to dump her with no real means of support.


Azzholes do dump .
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Buddy400 said:


> I think I must have failed to make myself clear.
> 
> If the husband is the breadwinner, the wife a SAHM, the husband wants a divorce and the wife has done nothing wrong (infidelity, mental cruelty, etc) then the wife gets alimony.
> 
> If the husband is the breadwinner, the wife a SAHM, the wife wants the divorce and the husband has done nothing wrong (infidelity, mental cruelty, etc) then the wife does not get alimony.


I understand. The question remains though. ....who gets decide if he's done nothing wrong? 

Men here are told to walk over not enough sex. So who's going to decide what that means? By your argument of fault if some arbitrary person decides he wasn't getting enough sex then his wife doesn't get alimony. 

But if it's decided he really was she gets it.

What if your wife gives you starfish sex? Are you entitled to get out of alimony? 

What if you require porn sex and don't get it?

What if your wife puts out but makes you feel like a paycheck? Technically she's done nothing wrong so you can't walk without alimony.

What about claims of mental cruelty? Who gets to decide? 

If you introduce fault and allow people benefit and punish over it you'll open the box for all kinds of stuff.

Honestly it's attitudes like this that fuel my belief that there's no freaking way staying at home is worth the risk. There"s no way I'd e dependent on someone when some arbitrary person gets to decide if I have a good enough reason to leave.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## manfromlamancha

Alimony should only be considered if they bring back at fault divorces and make adultery a crime.


----------



## EleGirl

jld said:


> In the military you only need to be married ten years to get half of your spouse's pension. No children needed, afaik.


I believe that it's half of the pension that was earned during the years of marriage.

If the military members goes continues in the military for another 10 years after divorce, the ex has no rights to the additional 10 years of earned pension.



jld said:


> I think there should be some ongoing percentage of support, a return on your spouse's investment in you. I am not sure about the figures.
> 
> It never hurts to make people think more carefully about who they are marrying. Hard to imagine someone marrying at such a young age anymore, and expecting it to last.


Today, about 15% of divorces end up with some kind of alimony payment. Most of the times it is short term alimony. The average alimony payment is about $300.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## samyeagar

Zanne said:


> QFT. This is it exactly! Laws regarding alimony are changing to reflect our culture. You can disagree all you want, but you will be left behind and penniless if you don't prepare yourself adequately for all of the "what ifs" in life.
> 
> From one appellate court:
> 
> “As recognized by our Supreme Court, the public policy of this state has progressed from one which entitled some women to lifelong alimony as a condition of the marital contract of support, to one that *entitles either spouse to post-dissolution support for only so long as is necessary to become self-supporting.*”


Those words are meaningless until there is a mechanism to measure and enforce accountability of the recipient.


----------



## anonmd

jld said:


> I would expect lifetime alimony in the extremely unlikely event I were ever divorced. I have been home for two decades bringing up five children, breastfeeding and homeschooling them just as my husband wanted. Those are years I could have been working and building a career.
> 
> My willingness to follow him on foreign assignments allowed him to build his experience base and get the job he has now, while still enjoying having a family. I would think it quite unfair for that contribution to not be acknowledged.


I can see your position, lifetime seems too long though. It is as if your husband is forever chained to you. 

Any way, not the typical situation these days. 

My wife to be had a negative net worth and an alias of Jesse James in the credit reporting industry when we got together. Her rehabilitation took place during marriage, she can stand on her own now if necessary .


----------



## Pluto2

samyeagar said:


> I would like to add...I have absolutely no problems with providing financial support for my children. It is formulaic, with very little deviation. One thing I would like to change though is requiring the custodial recipient to also provide financially for their children. They are both the parents, so it should not be left to just one parent.


State guidelines for child support already take both parent's income into consideration when setting the amount of support the custodial parent receives. Some do it directly in a computation, some do it indirectly by awarding a percentage of income of non-custodial parent.
I agree it is formulaic. But the system before statutory guidelines was unworkable and left most kids with insufficient support.


And unrelated to your post, suggestions to equate spousal support with fault for divorce are vengeful and regressive. They were eliminated for a reason.


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> State guidelines for child support already take both parent's income into consideration when setting the amount of support the custodial parent receives. Some do it directly in a computation, some do it indirectly by awarding a percentage of income of non-custodial parent.
> I agree it is formulaic. But the system before statutory guidelines was unworkable and left most kids with insufficient support.
> 
> 
> And unrelated to your post, suggestions to equate spousal support with fault for divorce are vengeful and regressive. They were eliminated for a reason.


Sure, the law figures the person getting CS spends their own money on the kids, but in practice, that may or may not happen. Just as the person may or may not spend the CS money on their kids. There is no accountability, at all, and the legal system does not want anything to do with the fraction of cases where abuse could be alleged or even easily proven. It is too costly for the spouse paying CS to go to court to prove the kids are getting shafted by the spouse receiving CS.


----------



## EleGirl

naiveonedave said:


> Sure, the law figures the person getting CS spends their own money on the kids, but in practice, that may or may not happen. Just as the person may or may not spend the CS money on their kids. There is no accountability, at all, and the legal system does not want anything to do with the fraction of cases where abuse could be alleged or even easily proven. It is too costly for the spouse paying CS to go to court to prove the kids are getting shafted by the spouse receiving CS.


If the kids have a safe home to live in, clothing, food, and activities, medical care, etc. then the money is being spent on the children.

If they do not have these things, then the parent who received child support is negligent and the paying parent needs to gather evidence and go back to court.


----------



## naiveonedave

EleGirl said:


> If the kids have a safe home to live in, clothing, food, and activities, medical care, etc. then the money is being spent on the children.
> 
> If they do not have these things, then the parent who received child support is negligent and the paying parent needs to gather evidence and go back to court.


That is the problem, the parent should not have to prove, in court, that the ex spouse is using the money properly. The barrier to entry to too high. This should be part of standard D protocol with young children involved. But since no one is paying, the gubmint (missed spelled on purpose) should either track or make it a no cost to either party legal action to investigate.

If the spouse paying child support is practically destitute (near the poverty line) how on earth are they going to afford $1000 for a retainer?


----------



## Pluto2

naiveonedave said:


> Sure, the law figures the person getting CS spends their own money on the kids, but in practice, that may or may not happen. Just as the person may or may not spend the CS money on their kids. There is no accountability, at all, and the legal system does not want anything to do with the fraction of cases where abuse could be alleged or even easily proven. It is too costly for the spouse paying CS to go to court to prove the kids are getting shafted by the spouse receiving CS.


As long is the child is not abused or neglected, the NCP has no business second-guessing how the CS is spent.

And courts ARE very much interested in allegations of abuse and neglect. But they won't facilitate an unreasonable intrusion into another adult's household spending because a NCP doesn't agree with how the money is spent.

(end of thread jack-and now I' leaving another thread)


----------



## samyeagar

Pluto2 said:


> *State guidelines for child support already take both parent's income into consideration when setting the amount of support the custodial parent receives. Some do it directly in a computation, some do it indirectly by awarding a percentage of income of non-custodial parent*.
> I agree it is formulaic. But the system before statutory guidelines was unworkable and left most kids with insufficient support.
> 
> 
> And unrelated to your post, suggestions to equate spousal support with fault for divorce are vengeful and regressive. They were eliminated for a reason.


They sure do, and in my state, when it is 100% me, 0% my ex-wife, well, my responsibility is 100% My ex wife wife was under no legal obligation to provide financially for the children. Nor was she ordered by a court to take action to become a financial contributor to our children. She was awarded maintenance under the guise of allowing her to further her education and gain skills for the workplace. She has done neither, nor had she given any hint of doing that at any point in her life. In her case, there was absolutely no sacrifice on her part because she never had any interest in education or career. Why would she start now, when she had an ex husband ordered by the courts to pay her almost $20 an hour full time.

If the children's best interest is really the driving force for any of these kinds of decisions, and the goal of both parents, I think accountability of finances would be welcomed by everyone who has the child's best interests at heart.

I was admonished by the judge when the final agreement was approved that I was bound to the amounts, and any future modifications would be based on my earning potential as opposed to my actual earnings.

When I asked for clarification from my lawyer, she told me it was a common warning for people who earn significantly more than minimum wage to keep them from quitting their job to screw over their ex's support. That regardless of my actual income status, calculations would be based on what I had been earning. So in a nut shell, the judge ordered me to not have any reduction in pay...too bad he hadn't ordered my employer not to cut pay 20% across the board last year...


----------



## EleGirl

And yea, this thread is not about child support. So lets stop the child support thread jack.


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> I understand. The question remains though. ....who gets decide if he's done nothing wrong?
> 
> Men here are told to walk over not enough sex. So who's going to decide what that means? By your argument of fault if some arbitrary person decides he wasn't getting enough sex then his wife doesn't get alimony.
> 
> But if it's decided he really was she gets it.
> 
> What if your wife gives you starfish sex? Are you entitled to get out of alimony?
> 
> What if you require porn sex and don't get it?
> 
> What if your wife puts out but makes you feel like a paycheck? Technically she's done nothing wrong so you can't walk without alimony.
> 
> What about claims of mental cruelty? Who gets to decide?
> 
> If you introduce fault and allow people benefit and punish over it you'll open the box for all kinds of stuff.
> 
> Honestly it's attitudes like this that fuel my belief that there's no freaking way staying at home is worth the risk. There"s no way I'd e dependent on someone when some arbitrary person gets to decide if I have a good enough reason to leave.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Courts would decide.

Fault would be infidelity, abuse, mental cruelty.

You'd have to convince the court.

If both spouses decide that one partner will sacrifice career development to focus on the family, then the sacrificing partner needs to be protected.

But, we also need to protect the samyeagers from getting screwed over. 

I do think that at least one parent needs to deprioritize their career if you're going to have kids. With no possibility of alimony, my wife would have been a fool to give up her lucrative career. And yet she and I both agreed that it was best.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## samyeagar

Buddy400 said:


> Courts would decide.
> 
> Fault would be infidelity, abuse, mental cruelty.
> 
> You'd have to convince the court.
> 
> *If both spouses decide that one partner will sacrifice career development to focus on the family, then the sacrificing partner needs to be protected.*
> 
> But, we also need to protect the samyeagers from getting screwed over.
> 
> I do think that at least one parent needs to deprioritize their career if you're going to have kids. With no possibility of alimony, my wife would have been a fool to give up her lucrative career. And yet she and I both agreed that it was best.


I do agree with this. One of the unfortunate realities of divorce is that things change. Standards of living are almost certainly going to go down for everyone involved. There should be no expectation for either spouse that their ex is going to fully support them for any significant amount of time. In the case of a SAHP, it should just be assumed that when the divorce happens, their days of being a SAHP are over, and as rough as it is, that lifestyle is over with the marriage.

What I see with the courts decisions as they stand now, there is no real emphasis on the alimony recipient becoming self sufficient. There is no legal accountability towards the recipient.

In cases where the amounts are held to income potential especially, there really needs to be some sort of accountability for the recipient...enrolling in school, and maintaining a certain class load and GPA, otherwise alimony is dropped. Finding a job that is near full time, otherwise alimony is dropped.

If the rationale behind alimony is to help the recipient get back into the workforce, to help them towards self sufficiency, then by god, they damned well better be doing it, and held accountable if they aren't.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## Kivlor

In general, I am opposed to alimony at all. But, I'm also opposed to debtor's prison and indentured servitude. I'm old-fashioned like that.


----------



## samyeagar

Zanne said:


> I understand your point about the courts not enforcing the decisions regarding self sufficiency, but *I don't like the idea of anyone else holding me accountable for my decisions if I'm not breaking the law.* I think there should be a reasonable time limit to accomplish things and if I chose not to follow through, I only have myself to blame. Unfortunately, as the laws stand now, I think it is tricky to have alimony modified or terminated.


Normally, I would agree with this 100%. The thing is, in the case of alimony, the decisions are being forcibly funded by someone else. The purpose of alimony is to help towards self sufficiency, but if that goal is not being actively worked towards with no tangible results within a reasonable amount of time, then I think it is wholly unfair to expect the person paying to keep paying alimony, when the recipient is not taking steps to substantially provide for themselves.


----------



## tech-novelist

Zanne said:


> I understand your point about the courts not enforcing the decisions regarding self sufficiency, but I don't like the idea of anyone else holding me accountable for my decisions if I'm not breaking the law. I think there should be a reasonable time limit to accomplish things and if I chose not to follow through, I only have myself to blame. Unfortunately, as the laws stand now, I think it is tricky to have alimony modified or terminated.


It's not illegal to stop paying your car payment, but the bank can take the car back anyway.

In other words, "not breaking the law" does not mean you are fulfilling promises you have made. Furthermore, the alimony *payer *will be subject to the force of the law if he doesn't pay; thus, you should also have to follow whatever the rules are for *getting *alimony.


----------



## samyeagar

The kicker is, I could have been the controlling assh0le and demanded she get a job, or I could have just said screw it, I'm not working anymore and supporting my family. Not doing the whole SAHM thing any more, and no court in the world would step in and force anything. Hell, I could have just kept all the money I earned, gave her an allowance, you know, all the crappy stuff we read about here, and no court could have stopped me. Sure, she could have divorced me, but I wouldn't have ended up any worse.


----------



## naiveonedave

It is very common that alimony is set up with clauses to keep the payer from taking a lesser job, but that ignores several realities. Getting laid off is common. As is alimony based on high bonuses or OT, but then those go away. I know my companies HR has been to alimony proceedings to save the payer from contempt of court.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Buddy400 said:


> Courts would decide.
> 
> Fault would be infidelity, abuse, mental cruelty.
> 
> You'd have to convince the court.
> 
> If both spouses decide that one partner will sacrifice career development to focus on the family, then the sacrificing partner needs to be protected.
> 
> But, we also need to protect the samyeagers from getting screwed over.
> 
> I do think that at least one parent needs to deprioritize their career if you're going to have kids. With no possibility of alimony, my wife would have been a fool to give up her lucrative career. And yet she and I both agreed that it was best.


I get it, nobody wants a pos to get alimony. Deciding fault has nothing to do with Sam's case, his ex wife was a lazy, entitled able bodied adult. There's no reason her lazy arse can't get a job. ....courts shouldn't need fault to expect an able bodied adult to get a job. 

Mental cruelty is highly subjective snd difficult to prove. 

If people think they'll benefit from infidelity accusations will fly everywhere in court, particularly by spouses who have nothing to lose by giving it a try. 
It clogs up the court system and was exactly the reason states got rid of fault.

And no matter how you define it there still be situations you can't foresee and many things will rest on you convincing a third party, who could be very biased, that your side is correct. 

Sounds good in theory when thinking about serial cheaters but in reality wouldn't work. 

The priority should me to stop viewing women as helpless creatures in need of support and to tell able bodied adults to get a job like everyone else.

Staying home is something you do with a willing partner. 

Clearly women like jld, who home schooled 5 kids and followed her hb around the world are not what I'm talking about here.

People like that deserve every bit they get.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

Zanne said:


> If rehabilitative alimony is for compensating the person who gave up time pursuing a career to raise a family, then you are paying that alimony in good faith. It's part of the settlement. Done and over. You are following through on the court order.
> 
> If the receiver chooses not to better herself, then that's too bad. *Enforcing parameters on alimony, let alone child support, seems controlling and it can be subjective*. A person could dictate which career the other person should be pursuing, for example.
> 
> ETA: And of course there is the option to have the alimony modified, although I understand it's more money going to your attorney and that's not always an option.


And the alimony laws ARE subjective, and controlling, and legally binding.

It should not be punitive. By having no enforcement, relying on good faith, there is no incentive for the receiver to act to uphold their side in the good faith agreement. Actually, it's only good faith on the receivers side. The person paying has no choice.

It can and does become punitive simply because it is no strings attached cash ordered payed to another person with no expectation that it will actually be used in any specific way, and no recourse if it isn't used for what it was intended for. That is the very definition of a gift...a court ordered gift that if you don't give it, you go to jail.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Zanne said:


> I totally agree with your statement that women are not helpless creatures.
> 
> But I'm curious.... like jld, I stayed at home while raising my five kids and homeschooled. I helped my husband run our business. Our marriage fell apart and we separated, but not before I had an affair.
> 
> I bet you would say that I do not deserve every bit I could get.
> 
> But if jld's husband decided to leave their marriage for a reason that was important to him, whatever that may be, should he now continue to provide for her needs for the rest of his days, even though she will no longer be contributing any value to his life?



Why would you assume that? I'm quite familiar with your story.....have you not noticed that I've been arguing that trying to assign fault isn't going to work? I'm pretty sure I'm the one who pointed out on your thread that your affair is not the reason you guys are getting divorced and if your hb won't accept that then that's his problem. He knows his part even if he chooses to ignore it.

I don't believe I'm the one who brought cheating into this argument.

Just curious, did your husband want you staying home and homeschooling? Jld's husband did.

And yes she should, because JLD has sacrificed what she might have had in life to support his family so he could pursue his career. And this is what her husband wanted from the very beginning.

I'd have no problem with asking her to get a job when her kids are grown but her income potential is greatly reduced, so why should her husband be able to go on with his very nice paycheck that he's able to earn thanks in part to her raising his family while she has to struggle on whatever income she can earn?

If that situation ever came about it's very much in her interest to make as much as she can. But she's at least 20 years behind in terms of building income potential even if she started today.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Zanne said:


> You are compensating the receiver for a sacrifice that was already made. It's a business transaction.


You're assuming it was actually a sacrifice. It's my understanding that Sam's wife didn't want to work and when they divorced she was in her 30's and still didn't want to work.

There are some people that do sacrifice as they would've made other choices if not for the family, but for others marriage is simply a gravy train. 

My mom was like that; early in their marriage my dad had wanted her to get a job and she responded with why did she need to be married if she had to work? She didn't want to work and saw a husband as a ticket not to. But that was on him for putting up with that and he owned that later in his life.

No adult is entitled to be supported by another, but if Sam willingly went along with this then he's on the hook for that; that's what I tell my boys. I've advised both of them to be very careful in making the decision to support a sahm, because they will be assuming some level of responsibility for her support should things go south.


----------



## Lila

lifeistooshort said:


> H*onestly it's attitudes like this that fuel my belief that there's no freaking way staying at home is worth the risk. *There"s no way I'd e dependent on someone when some arbitrary person gets to decide if I have a good enough reason to leave.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The crazy thing is that many of the same men who adamantly oppose alimony, or are only for it if 'at-fault', are the same ones who will criticize a woman for not choosing to be a SAHM.


----------



## MarriedDude

Lila said:


> The crazy thing is that many of the same men who adamantly oppose alimony, or are only for it if 'at-fault', are the same ones who will *criticize a woman for not choosing to be a SAHM*.


The reality seems to be there is a never a right choice -when looked at in hind-sight. I believe that many of the same people that are for SAHP's...will then change their minds later when it doesn't suit their current world-view. Lots of BS..IMO. 

Nothing in life is risk free. Ensuring that someone you shared a bed with, created children with and loved...can have a roof over their head and food....for at least the interim...is good for everyone involved. From my life's observations...very few people ever get rich from alimony. nor does it really go on forever. 

If the cost of loving someone, having children and building a life...is that if it doesn't work out -you can't let that person flounder and move on to crushing poverty....then, IMO..the cost is still very low.


----------



## Duguesclin

lifeistooshort said:


> Why would you assume that? I'm quite familiar with your story.....have you not noticed that I've been arguing that trying to assign fault isn't going to work? I'm pretty sure I'm the one who pointed out on your thread that your affair is not the reason you guys are getting divorced and if your hb won't accept that then that's his problem. He knows his part even if he chooses to ignore it.
> 
> I don't believe I'm the one who brought cheating into this argument.
> 
> Just curious, did your husband want you staying home and homeschooling? Jld's husband did.
> 
> And yes she should, because JLD has sacrificed what she might have had in life to support his family so he could pursue his career. And this is what her husband wanted from the very beginning.
> 
> I'd have no problem with asking her to get a job when her kids are grown but her income potential is greatly reduced, so why should her husband be able to go on with his very nice paycheck that he's able to earn thanks in part to her raising his family while she has to struggle on whatever income she can earn?
> 
> If that situation ever came about it's very much in her interest to make as much as she can. But she's at least 20 years behind in terms of building income potential even if she started today.


I totally agreed with what you write. But why alimony is more justified when the husband wants a stay at home wife compared to a woman who makes that choice? 

It is very dangerous to make value judgement. Even in the case of your mom, even if she did not want to work, why would she be less entitled to alimony? To me the economics are the same.


----------



## richie33

If I asked my wife to be a stay at home mom then I would owe it to her to help her to get on her feet for a time period, not a lifetime. God forbid I would die she would have to get a job. So if we would divorce she would have to find a job also at some point.


----------



## MarriedDude

richie33 said:


> If I asked my wife to be a stay at home mom then I would owe it to her to help her to get on her feet for a time period, not a lifetime. God forbid I would die she would have to get a job. So if we would divorce she would have to find a job also at some point.


If you have put your family in the position that your death would require that your wife immediately begin to work -you need to do some planning. 

That probably scares the hell out of her.


----------



## Duguesclin

richie33 said:


> If I asked my wife to be a stay at home mom then I would owe it to her to help her to get on her feet for a time period, not a lifetime. God forbid I would die she would have to get a job. So if we would divorce she would have to find a job also at some point.


It depends how long she has stayed home. My wife has been home 20 years. If we were to divorce, I can't imagine not paying alimony for the rest of my life.


----------



## richie33

MarriedDude said:


> If you have put your family in the position that your death would require that your wife immediately begin to work -you need to do some planning.
> 
> That probably scares the hell out of her.


No one wrote immediately....it stated at some point. I don't have this problem since my wife is an RN and loves her career. Plus if something were to happen to me between my pension(s) and life insurance I will leave her really well off. But plenty of people I know do not have life insurance, I really don't know what they are thinking.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Duguesclin said:


> I totally agreed with what you write. But why alimony is more justified when the husband wants a stay at home wife compared to a woman who makes that choice?
> 
> It is very dangerous to make value judgement. Even in the case of your mom, even if she did not want to work, why would she be less entitled to alimony? To me the economics are the same.


There's certainly an argument for that. My parents did divorce and my mom did not ask for alimony.....she went back to work when I was 14. They had a settlement and she swiped some money from him, so since they were both hiding money they agreed to just settle and not go to court.

I don't think the economics are any different but I do think a husband who doesn't want this should think long and hard about remaining in the marriage. I'm a big proponent of an agreement between spouses for something like this because of the resentment it can cause, like it did for my parents, but if a guy doesn't agree with it but still goes along with it then that's on him.

I will say the same about stay at home dads.


----------



## MarriedDude

richie33 said:


> No one wrote immediately....it stated at some point. I don't have this problem since my wife is an RN and loves her career. Plus if something were to happen to me between my pension(s) and life insurance I will leave her really well off. But plenty of people I know do not have life insurance, I really don't know what they are thinking.


I stand corrected. You did not say immediately. 

I agree that there are WAY too many people out there that have left no plan for their families survival..just don't get it.


----------



## Haiku

samyeagar said:


> Alimony laws obviously vary from state to state, and even from judge to judge. There is a lot of arbitrary variation.
> 
> In my situation, I overlooked many red flags early on in my relationship with my now ex-wife. Red flags that only became obvious in hindsight, that I have paid dearly for, that she has profited handsomely from. In my extensive case law research, in my state, my case and the resulting judgement was fairly typical.
> 
> My ex wife has never supported herself for a day in her life. She went straight from her parents house to mine. She has never held a full time job. She made the decision to not continue her education past high school. She made the decision to become a stay at home mom. My mistake was supporting her in her decisions. She is also diagnosed NPD, with all of the associated entitlement, martyr, and victim complexes that accompany that.
> 
> The initial settlement offer based on my $65,000 per year income would have given her 85% of my gross income between child support and alimony. I would have been left literally without enough to cover taxes, and the health insurance for her and the kids I was required to maintain. The lifetime alimony award she was asking for was $2,500 per month for life. She was 37, in supreme health, fully able bodied when we divorced. She also wanted half of my retirement as it stood when I retired, not where it was when we divorced. The thing is, I had no retirement savings, as in zero dollars, because her financial mismanagement left us filing for bankruptcy two years before we divorced.
> 
> After my own personal research, and talking to several attorneys, there was a very real chance my ex-wife could be awarded exactly what she was asking for. One caveat about lifetime alimony vs temporary rehabilitative alimony in my state is that a lifetime award is not automatically ended upon the recipient remarrying.
> 
> She was also seeking full custody.
> 
> The United States got rid of debtors prisons a long time ago, but they have left a loophole wide open when it comes to child support and alimony...failure to pay is not considered a debt, it is considered contempt of court...a jailable offense. Looking at the numbers, it was an inevitability that I would end up in jail for failure to pay. Not because I was being an assh0le dead beat...because there was simply not enough money for me to do what the court ordered.
> 
> She used the kids as leverage against me. Said she'd be open to negotiations if I agreed to let her have full custody. What choice did I have? There was case law in my jurisdiction indicating that awards she was seeking in similar circumstances had been given by the courts. What good would shared custody be if I still ended up in jail.
> 
> In the end, even agreeing to her having custody, I still had to spend over $20,000 just to get every other weekend, five year alimony so she can get her degree and back into the work force, and keeping my non existent retirement.
> 
> Well, as of right now, four years later, she married her affair partner, hasn't gone back to school, still has not gotten a job, and still doesn't actually have any kids at home. The youngest is 14. She still tries to demand extras from me...for the kids of course. She is the epitome of the dead beat mom.





samyeagar said:


> They sure do, and in my state, when it is 100% me, 0% my ex-wife, well, my responsibility is 100% My ex wife wife was under no legal obligation to provide financially for the children. Nor was she ordered by a court to take action to become a financial contributor to our children. She was awarded maintenance under the guise of allowing her to further her education and gain skills for the workplace. She has done neither, nor had she given any hint of doing that at any point in her life. In her case, there was absolutely no sacrifice on her part because she never had any interest in education or career. Why would she start now, when she had an ex husband ordered by the courts to pay her almost $20 an hour full time.
> 
> If the children's best interest is really the driving force for any of these kinds of decisions, and the goal of both parents, I think accountability of finances would be welcomed by everyone who has the child's best interests at heart.
> 
> I was admonished by the judge when the final agreement was approved that I was bound to the amounts, and any future modifications would be based on my earning potential as opposed to my actual earnings.
> 
> When I asked for clarification from my lawyer, she told me it was a common warning for people who earn significantly more than minimum wage to keep them from quitting their job to screw over their ex's support. That regardless of my actual income status, calculations would be based on what I had been earning. So in a nut shell, the judge ordered me to not have any reduction in pay...too bad he hadn't ordered my employer not to cut pay 20% across the board last year...


Would you mind disclosing your state?


----------



## Duguesclin

Zanne said:


> Thanks for replying, @lifeistooshort. I made my assumption based on the general consensus around here in regards to cheating. I'm sorry to throw you in the mix!
> 
> I brought up infidelity because it seems like one of the most popular reasons why people think a judge should not award alimony. Since you are in support of a person such as jld receiving lifetime alimony if she were to divorce, I was wondering if infidelity would sway your opinion.
> 
> My staying home to raise kids was not my husband's idea. I am old fashioned that way and I wanted nothing more in life than to be a mom and homemaker. But life doesn't turn out the way it does in fairy tales, nor in the dreams of silly teenage girls. I learned that the hard way. I made my choices - and so did jld. She likely knows the risk, as did I.
> 
> I am not going ask for alimony because I know my husband can't afford it. A little rehabilitative support would be great! But I'm not going to bankrupt the father of my kids. Now I am scrambling to have a retirement plan in place. According to CNN Money, nearly 25% of my income will need to be saved so that I can retire at a cost of living close to my current salary - which isn't very much. That sucks. But that's life!


Why do you care about your kids' father? Has he ever cared about you?


----------



## Haiku

My opinion is alimony or spousal support/maintenance has its place.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Duguesclin said:


> Why do you care about your kids' father? Has he ever cared about you?


Eh, I didn't ask my ex for alimony either, and I let him keep his military retirement even though I'd been home. In fairness though I was only home for 5 years, but I knew at the end of the day I'd be making much more and I don't think it's in my kids' interest for their dad to suffer.

I doubt he would've given me the same consideration but I'm not him.

He's retired from the military now and doesn't have much, works part time at a retail chain. I'm remarried and an actuary, so my prediction did come to pass. 

He doesn't pay any CS now.....I did give him a temporary break when he retired but unfortunately it's been almost 2 years now.

He's just not very motivated. Though in his defense he does carry the kids medical and dental so that's something.

He should be kissing my rear end.....he wanted to get out while I was expecting our younger one and I said no.....told him to take himself down to the office and sign those papers to stay in. Good thing for him, if he'd gotten out he'd be a bum. At least this way he has some retirement, so he owes me for that.


On the plus side he's motivated to be nice to me and to not be a pain in my arse, so it's not like I get nothing out of it :grin2:


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> Yours is definitely a case for it, and I'd bet Dug would've had no issues signing a prenup agreeing to it in exchange for you being willing to home school his kids and follow him around.
> 
> Especially after a certain number of years.
> 
> *You were asked, in many ways, to give up your life. That is at the heart of what alimony is for*.


This is absolutely true, life. I did not go to Dug a few years into marriage and propose to be a SAHM. I was told after a few days of dating that Dug wanted us to breastfeed and homeschool our kids. Now, who do you think he expected to do that breastfeeding and homeschooling? 

I put my life into his hands. I trusted him. I still do. 
@Zanne Your husband will get Social Security. Are you asking for any percentage of that?


----------



## jld

lifeistooshort said:


> Eh, I didn't ask my ex for alimony either, and I let him keep his military retirement even though I'd been home. In fairness though I was only home for 5 years, but I knew at the end of the day I'd be making much more and I don't think it's in my kids' interest for their dad to suffer.
> 
> I doubt he would've given me the same consideration but I'm not him.
> 
> He's retired from the military now and doesn't have much, works part time at a retail chain. I'm remarried and an actuary, so my prediction did come to pass.
> 
> He doesn't pay any CS now.....I did give him a temporary break when he retired but unfortunately it's been almost 2 years now.
> 
> He's just not very motivated. Though in his defense he does carry the kids medical and dental so that's something.
> 
> He should be kissing my rear end.....he wanted to get out while I was expecting our younger one and I said no.....told him to take himself down to the office and sign those papers to stay in. Good thing for him, if he'd gotten out he'd be a bum. At least this way he has some retirement, so he owes me for that.
> 
> 
> On the plus side he's motivated to be nice to me and to not be a pain in my arse, so it's not like I get nothing out of it :grin2:


You helped him a lot. Fortunately he listened when you told him to re-enlist. He has health care until he dies, plus retirement. And since he lives alone and does not pay child support, he probably does not need much income. 

My concern for Zanne is that she is not going to make the kind of money that you do. She needs income, but also health care coverage and something for retirement. But I don't think her husband has ever made much, so beyond sharing his Social Security with her, he may not really have anything to offer, anyway.

Another thing. Your helping your ex is helping your kids. Since he has health care coverage until death, plus some retirement income, they will not have to provide for his basic needs as he ages. Both he and the boys have a lot to thank you for.


----------



## Adelais

A sweet grandmother from our church married young, helped her husband on their farm, kept a huge garden, raised and processed her own chickens, canned food for the winter, ground her own flour, baked her own bread ran the tractor to help bring in the hay, and raised their 4 children to adulthood. When they were nearing retirement age, he found a younger woman and divorced his wife. He and his new wife kept the farm. The sweet grandmother had to move into a little house down the street from us and cleaned other people's houses to make ends meet. She turned her little house into a mini farm, if that were possible. 

What her husband did to her was so wrong.

Then her son's wife cheated on him and divorced him for her lover. He and the children moved in with the grandmother. They didn't want to be with the grandfather, even though he had more room. Tells you how much she was loved, and what a giving woman she was.

Like JLD I left my career to raise and homeschool 4 children supporting my husband behind the scenes in his career efforts. He wanted me to stay home and I was fine with it too, turning it into an interesting (unpaid) career. Homeschooling 4 children was more challenging than being being a chemist or a high school foreign language teacher ever were. After his affair fiasco, and temporarily being willing to toss me to the curb, I am going to encourage our daughters to keep a career going even if it is part time, since promises are nothing but words. The law does not value a homemaker's work or time anymore.


----------



## Duguesclin

Zanne said:


> I am not going ask for alimony because I know my husband can't afford it. A little rehabilitative support would be great! But I'm not going to bankrupt the father of my kids. Now I am scrambling to have a retirement plan in place. According to CNN Money, nearly 25% of my income will need to be saved so that I can retire at a cost of living close to my current salary - which isn't very much. That sucks. But that's life!


Zanne, is it better for you to go bankrupt on your kids? 

I do not understand why you want to be easy on your husband. Alimony is there for a reason and you should take advantage of it. Your husband can figure a way to make more money.


----------



## Duguesclin

IMFarAboveRubies said:


> Like JLD I left my career to raise and homeschool 4 children supporting my husband behind the scenes in his career efforts. He wanted me to stay home and I was fine with it too, turning it into an interesting (unpaid) career. Homeschooling 4 children was more challenging than being being a chemist or a high school foreign language teacher ever were. After his affair fiasco, and temporarily being willing to toss me to the curb, I am going to encourage our daughters to keep a career going even if it is part time, since promises are nothing but words. *The law does not value a homemaker's work or time anymore*.


The American society does not value stay at home moms. I do not think it ever valued them. The only difference with the past is that today women need to work to sustain our economical growth.

There is nothing wrong with women working. What is wrong is the fact that stay at home moms are only valued by the mom herself and only sometimes by the father.

I think alimony is fundamental in a well-functioning society. If we claim to respect children and mothers, we should have very strong alimony laws.


----------



## jld

Lila said:


> The crazy thing is that many of the same men who adamantly oppose alimony, or are only for it if 'at-fault', are the same ones who will criticize a woman for not choosing to be a SAHM.


I get this feeling, too, this "fair weather" clause. "It is fine for you to be a sahm if in so doing you make my life easier. But if I get tired of this scene for whatever reason, you should have had a job because it is certainly not my responsibility to compensate your years not building your own career." It reflects self-interest.

And for whoever asked, yes I have invested in my husband's career potential over these last two decades. His gain is the family's gain. We all benefit from his job going well.

I did not marry just for love. I took a very levelheaded look at Dug when he told me early on that he wanted to have children with me. He was stable and hardworking. He was intelligent and honest. He had a degree in mechanical engineering and just seemed very upright. I trusted him.

I was needy and without a plan in life; he had a plan and wanted me to be a big part of it. I heard the terms and accepted them. He took responsibility for providing for us and having an overall plan for our life. I have certainly contributed to that vision. And I do not see any reason I should not be compensated accordingly.

And Dug, because he respects mothers, does not, either.


----------



## bfree

Duguesclin said:


> Zanne, is it better for you to go bankrupt on your kids?
> 
> I do not understand why you want to be easy on your husband. Alimony is there for a reason and you should take advantage of it. Your husband can figure a way to make more money.


I've given Zanne a hard time on many occasions (she'll tell you that herself.) Although her actions do not always demonstrate it I believe she is a true sister in Christ and has a good soul. So many times I've vowed to give up on her. I just can't. If we were to ever meet I'm not sure if I'd wag a finger in her face or hug her. Probably both but I suspect the hug would last much longer. I know this is going to sound strange considering she is a WS but I know in my heart and in my mind that she is a good and compassionate person. That's why she refuses to pursue her ex H for alimony. Because she feels it is not the right thing to do.

On a side note I hope one day Zanne writes the autobiography of her life. It's sure to be a best seller.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> This is absolutely true, life. *I did not go to Dug a few years into marriage and propose to be a SAHM*. I was told after a few days of dating that Dug wanted us to breastfeed and homeschool our kids. Now, who do you think he expected to do that breastfeeding and homeschooling?
> 
> I put my life into his hands. I trusted him. I still do.
> 
> @Zanne Your husband will get Social Security. Are you asking for any percentage of that?


When my ex wife and I married, she had a part time job and she was adamant that she was going to be a working mom when we had kids. One red flag I totally missed was her quitting her job the day we found out she was pregnant in our first month of marriage. That was the last time she worked.


----------



## samyeagar

Zanne said:


> @samyeagar, I can feel the bitterness you have for your ex in your posts and for that I'm very sorry. It sounds like she really did a number on you. But the court agreed that she sacrificed some good working years to stay home and raise your children. That's the sacrifice that you are currently paying for, regardless of whether she was a crappy wife/mom or not, then or now. It's just numbers. That's all I'm saying.
> 
> In EleGirl's poll, I voted for short term rehabilitative alimony because I agree with it's purpose based on everything I've stated above. The law is only meant to direct.


I'm not bitter towards my ex wife. I just want her out of my life.

I am not inherently opposed to alimony, and I do see it's value and necessity in concept. The problem is with the implementation and potentially punitive nature with very little recourse. I don't really have any issues with no fault divorce either.

To put it in better perspective...my case is fairly common, and not particularly egregious when it comes to high conflict divorces. I am not some special snowflake. In fairness, the vast majority of divorces are not high conflict, and these types of issues never even come up, or as evidenced by the women in this thread, are even considered.

My ex-wife and I were married for 17 years, 16 of those with kids. She was 37 and I was 39 at the time we divorced. If she had been awarded lifetime alimony, and let's suppose I died early at 70, that would have been her receiving $30,000 a year for 31 years, the majority of that with no kids at home, and only herself. That is almost a million dollars, without having to work a single day. That is way beyond compensating her for time given up being a SAHM. I accept that marriage, having kids, and financially supporting a SAHM is a risk I took all on my own, but those consequences are excessive. In retrospect, it is a risk I would never take again.

Her initial offer between child support and alimony was for 85% of my gross pay of $65,000 per year. That would not even leave me enough to cover the taxes and court ordered insurance for her and the kids...as in, it would leave me with zero dollars, and still not enough to cover mandatory expenses. My own research, and multiple attorneys confirmed that such a judgement was possible. So let's take a step back here...she was asking for, and could possibly be awarded more money than the entire household had when we were married. Let me repeat that...she was asking for, and could possibly be awarded more money than the entire household had when we were married. She didn't care if she bankrupted me, and neither do the courts.

It wasn't just a matter of me being a money grubbing dead beat who wanted to kick her out into the street so I could buy the newest xbox. It was a fight for my survival. Can't go on welfare, food stamps, medical card either because on paper, I'd still be earning $65,000 a year. Get an extra job you might say...well, she'd be able to go after that too. Plus, there are only so many hours in the day a person can work.

Now, as to it being for the kids, my ex wife offered me giving her full custody in return for limited five year alimony. Right there, in black and white, she used the kids as a bargaining chip...one could almost argue...extortion.

In the end, after $20,000 in attorney fees, I managed a settlement that didn't leave me ruined for the rest of my life. I consider myself fortunate. Many are not.


----------



## jld

bfree said:


> I've given Zanne a hard time on many occasions (she'll tell you that herself.) Although her actions do not always demonstrate it I believe she is a true sister in Christ and has a good soul. So many times I've vowed to give up on her. I just can't. If we were to ever meet I'm not sure if I'd wag a finger in her face or hug her. Probably both but I suspect the hug would last much longer. I know this is going to sound strange considering she is a WS but I know in my heart and in my mind that she is a good and compassionate person. That's why she refuses to pursue her ex H for alimony. Because she feels it is not the right thing to do.
> 
> On a side note I hope one day Zanne writes the autobiography of her life. It's sure to be a best seller.


I don't think being a WS necessarily has much to do with being a good and compassionate person. I think it has a lot to do with feeling emotionally starved.

I think Zanne either feels guilty about the affair and the divorce, or thinks her ex is weak and cannot handle any more responsibilities than just taking care of himself. 

I don't think Zanne is thinking about her own long term best interests.


----------



## jld

Sam, what do you think would have been a fair settlement for your ex, from the get go?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

My story is very different from Jlds.. when we married I made more than my husband.. his only college was a certificate for computers -he never got a job in that even.. We just vowed to plunge forward together, saving, scrimping, whatever we could to make it ...we were in this together...

My husband would agree with alimony... at least for a certain amount of time, if a wife stayed home, their agreeing on this arrangement.. 

If I ever cheated on my husband.. basically I would destroy his life...he's told me he'd be better off to shoot himself in the head.. with child support etc...he wouldn't make enough to afford to live...

He truly put himself into a vulnerable position taking me on.. and having this many kids. 

I have often said of myself.. If I ruined this good man's life.. I wouldn't feel I deserved a dime, and certainly NOT half of our house & property.....I'd feel I made my bed and I'd need to lay in it... 

But I say that cause he's such an honorable man...If he was a Jerk.. didn't treat me right, I'm very sure I'd not be singing that tune.. 

I'm not one to feel it should be for a lifetime..I think this can be greatly abused.. if one snatched a rich man.. and woe to the poorer man if he was strapped with it..


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> My story is very different from Jlds.. when we married I made more than my husband.. his only college was a certificate for computers -he never got a job in that even.. We just vowed to plunge forward together, saving, scrimping, whatever we could to make it ...we were in this together...
> 
> My husband would agree with alimony... at least for a certain amount of time, if a wife stayed home, their agreeing on this arrangement..
> 
> If I ever cheated on my husband.. basically I would destroy his life...he's told me he'd be better off to shoot himself in the head.. with child support etc...he wouldn't make enough to afford to live...
> 
> *He truly put himself into a vulnerable position taking me on.. and having this many kids.*
> 
> I have often said of myself.. If I ruined this good man's life.. I wouldn't feel I deserved a dime, and certainly NOT half of our house & property.....I'd feel I made my bed and I'd need to lay in it...
> 
> But I say that cause he's such an honorable man...If he was a Jerk.. didn't treat me right, I'm very sure I'd not be singing that tune..
> 
> I'm not one to feel it should be for a lifetime..I think this can be greatly abused.. if one snatched a rich man.. and woe to the poorer man if he was strapped with it..


I think this is an important point. I don't think Dug feels vulnerable at all. 

He wanted me, he wanted lots of kids, he wanted them brought up a certain way. He wanted an interesting career with expat assignments. 

He has gotten what he wanted. He does not want me to feel shortchanged in any way because of that.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Sam, what do you think would have been a fair settlement for your ex, from the get go?


Shared 50/50 custody of the children, state guideline child support, half of my retirement at the time of divorce, five years of rehabilitative alimony at 1/3 of my net income.


----------



## samyeagar

There seems to be a societal assumption that by default, a SAHM saccrifices career growth, earning potential by staying at home, while the working father reaps only benefits from it. That assumption is based on another assumption...that SAHM's actually want a career and earning potential. Our courts operate under those assumptions as well. I do agree that in many cases, the SAHM saccrifices a lot. No question there, but that is not always the case, nor is the sacrifice always as big as assumed. Little consideration is given to the thought that the working father also saccrifices.

Going back to my situation, I am not a special little snowflake that got dumped on. I imagine there are many other men out there just like me. I was in college finishing up my degree in Atmospheric Science when we married. The plan was for me to work for the National Weather Service. I already had a job lined up upon graduation. My oldest was born in January, and I graduated in May. Anyone who knows about working for the government knows it doesn't pay that well, pay increases are slow, and they cap out. When my ex wife quit her job upon finding out she was pregnant, and made it clear she had no plans of going back to work, I had to turn down my dream NWS job in favor of one that I didn't really want, but was higher paying so I could support her in the decision she made.

I realize and accept that I made the decisions I made, and accept the consequences of those terrible decisions. I could have, and in retrospect, should have made very different decisions.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Shared 50/50 custody of the children, state guideline child support, half of my retirement at the time of divorce, five years of rehabilitative alimony at 1/3 of my net income.


That sounds pretty good. The only question might be 50/50 custody, considering the kids were used to being with her most of the time. But they were all in school already, right?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> There seems to be a societal assumption that by default, a SAHM saccrifices career growth, earning potential by staying at home, while the working father reaps only benefits from it. That assumption is based on another assumption...that SAHM's actually want a career and earning potential. Our courts operate under those assumptions as well. I do agree that in many cases, the SAHM saccrifices a lot. No question there, but that is not always the case, nor is the sacrifice always as big as assumed. Little consideration is given to the thought that the working father also saccrifices.
> 
> Going back to my situation, I am not a special little snowflake that got dumped on. I imagine there are many other men out there just like me. I was in college finishing up my degree in Atmospheric Science when we married. The plan was for me to work for the National Weather Service. I already had a job lined up upon graduation. My oldest was born in January, and I graduated in May. Anyone who knows about working for the government knows it doesn't pay that well, pay increases are slow, and they cap out. When my ex wife quit her job upon finding out she was pregnant, and made it clear she had no plans of going back to work, I had to turn down my dream NWS job in favor of one that I didn't really want, but was higher paying so I could support her in the decision she made.
> 
> I realize and accept that I made the decisions I made, and accept the consequences of those terrible decisions. I could have, and in retrospect, should have made very different decisions.


It sounds like she had most of the power in the relationship, and you felt marginalized from the beginning.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> It sounds like she had most of the power in the relationship, and you felt marginalized from the beginning.


She had most of the power because I trusted her to be a good steward of my contributions. I felt marginalized by her in the end, yes, but not in the beginning. I made the mistake of buying into the whole everything for the children, mothers on pedestals, husbands do anything for their wives. I just never heard that it is supposed to be a two way street, and that the best thing for the kids is a healthy relationship where the mother and father put the marriage first.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> She had most of the power because I trusted her to be a good steward of my contributions. I felt marginalized by her in the end, yes, but not in the beginning. I made the mistake of buying into the whole everything for the children, mothers on pedestals, husbands do anything for their wives. I just never heard that it is supposed to be a two way street, and that the best thing for the kids is a healthy relationship where the mother and father put the marriage first.


Did you ever say No?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Did you ever say No?


Sure. Never did any good though. She did what she wanted, and I was called controlling, disrespectful, all those shaming things to keep me in line...

Do not forget that through all of this, unbeknownst to me, she was NPD with the accompanying victim complex, martyr complex, golden uterus complex.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Sure. Never did any good though. She did what she wanted, and I was called controlling, disrespectful, all those shaming things...
> 
> Do not forget that through all of this, unbeknownst to me, she was NPD with the accompanying victim complex, martyr complex, golden uterus complex.


I am sure you felt disrespected.

I bet it is hard to live with a spouse who cannot hear No. 

Not that it is not good to want an explanation, instead of just a simple command.


----------



## Kivlor

lifeistooshort said:


> The priority should me to stop viewing women as helpless creatures in need of support and to tell able bodied adults to get a job like everyone else.
> 
> Staying home is something you do with a willing partner.
> 
> Clearly women like jld, who home schooled 5 kids and followed her hb around the world are not what I'm talking about here.
> 
> People like that deserve every bit they get.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_



Could you expound on this a bit? I'm feeling like at a cursory reading, maintaining this position requires a lot of cognitive dissonance. I'm probably missing something.

Take JLD for example (since she's been used as one throughout this thread): She freely admits she knew what she was getting into at the beginning. No one twisted her arm. She knew the risks. She made an exchange--her at home with the kids, Dug working on the road. Half of everything, plus perhaps a short period of alimony would be just. But for her lifetime? Isn't that viewing her as a "helpless creature in need of support" instead of "telling her to get a job like everyone else"? 

* * * * *

I know a lot of people keep mentioning the "partnership" term. I know of no partnership agreement, where one partner can say "I want to dissolve the Partnership" and then take ~half of the other partner's income for the rest of their lives. Normally everything earned during the partnership is calculated. It is divided, and the parties go their separate ways. That is just.


----------



## WasDecimated

I voted "I’m a man – Only short term rehabilitative Alimony should be available" but....

Only if the disillusion of the marriage is amicable. In cases of infidelity, substance abuse, physical abuse, or just plain laziness...nothing! 

Rant alert!

My XWW had every opportunity to go to school and better herself with more education and find a career. In fact, I encouraged it. She chose to spend her spare time shopping for new clothes and shoes and in the process, spending all the disposable income that I could earn, lunches with her besties, and eventually using that time to cheat. She lived life like one of those women on The Housewives of Beverly Hills. She had every opportunity to grow up and except some responsibility for her life and help contribute to ours. She much preferred to saddle me with that burden and take the easy and carefree road of laziness. 

I got stuck with 5 years of alimony. My monthly payment takes care of her condo rent, car payment, fuel, insurance, all utilities, groceries...all the essentials that she needs to sustain life, with some to spare. Basically, her life of fun, with no toil, continues and is still supported by me. Whatever money she makes with her part time job goes towards having a good time. The unfairness of this is unbelievable. 

It will be interesting to see what happens in two years when my alimony obligation ends. She will be almost 47 years old. I guess it'll be time to grow up or find some fool to take over where I left off or start cashing out some of the investments she got from me. There seems to be no shortage of safety nets for people like her.


----------



## samyeagar

Decimated said:


> I voted "I’m a man – Only short term rehabilitative Alimony should be available" but....
> 
> Only if the disillusion of the marriage is amicable. In cases of infidelity, substance abuse, physical abuse, or just plain laziness...nothing!
> 
> Rant alert!
> 
> My XWW had every opportunity to go to school and better herself with more education and find a career. In fact, I encouraged it. She chose to spend her spare time shopping for new clothes and shoes and in the process, spending all the disposable income that I could earn, lunches with her besties, and eventually using that time to cheat. She lived life like one of those women on The Housewives of Beverly Hills. She had every opportunity to grow up and except some responsibility for her life and help contribute to ours. She much preferred to saddle me with that burden and take the easy and carefree road of laziness.
> 
> I got stuck with 5 years of alimony. My monthly payment takes care of her condo rent, car payment, fuel, insurance, all utilities, groceries...all the essentials that she needs to sustain life, with some to spare. Basically, her life of fun, with no toil, continues and is still supported by me. Whatever money she makes with her part time job goes towards having a good time. The unfairness of this is unbelievable.
> 
> It will be interesting to see what happens in two years when my alimony obligation ends. She will be almost 47 years old. I guess it'll be time to grow up or *find some fool to take over where I left off* or start cashing out some of the investments she got from me. There seems to be no shortage of safety nets for people like her.


My ex wife just married her affair partner. A month after they married, he cashed out his 401k so he could buy her the house she wanted as a wedding present. The house he owned outright, that they were living in before they married, he just sold after they were married. She still doesn't have a job. He is so screwed.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> Could you expound on this a bit? I'm feeling like at a cursory reading, maintaining this position requires a lot of cognitive dissonance. I'm probably missing something.
> 
> Take JLD for example (since she's been used as one throughout this thread): She freely admits she knew what she was getting into at the beginning. No one twisted her arm. She knew the risks. She made an exchange--her at home with the kids, Dug working on the road. Half of everything, plus perhaps a short period of alimony would be just. But for her lifetime? Isn't that viewing her as a "helpless creature in need of support" instead of "telling her to get a job like everyone else"?
> 
> * * * * *
> 
> I know a lot of people keep mentioning the "partnership" term. I know of no partnership agreement, where one partner can say "I want to dissolve the Partnership" and then take ~half of the other partner's income for the rest of their lives. *Normally everything earned during the partnership is calculated. It is divided, and the parties go their separate ways. That is just.*


IME..when one wants out of a partnership...in addition to dividing the assets and liabilities...there is the matter of future revenue from the past joint endeavors. This tends to go on for some years. The total cash out option is there - but not usually taken. Similar here -the party that benefited (monetarily) from the labor of the SAHS -would be obliged to compensate the SAHS for the loss of income potential -loss of revenue potential. Or...compensated for the their share of the increased revenue potential of the working spouse. 

I have walked away from many contracts -the end user having determined that contracting with me would not be in their best interest (found a cheaper alternative, etc,,) however, once the contract is signed I am obliged to collect the profits and contribution to overhead that I would have received if the contract had been completed -and have done this EVERY time.

Once the marriage partnership is signed, confirmed, filed, etc... both partners have an expectation of the profits and contribution to overhead that would have been made should the union have endured.


----------



## WasDecimated

A fool and his money are soon parted!


----------



## MarriedDude

Decimated said:


> I voted "I’m a man – Only short term rehabilitative Alimony should be available" but....
> 
> Only if the disillusion of the marriage is amicable. In cases of infidelity, substance abuse, physical abuse, or just plain laziness...nothing!
> 
> Rant alert!
> 
> My XWW had every opportunity to go to school and better herself with more education and find a career. In fact, I encouraged it. She chose to spend her spare time shopping for new clothes and shoes and in the process, spending all the disposable income that I could earn, lunches with her besties, and eventually using that time to cheat. She lived life like one of those women on The Housewives of Beverly Hills. She had every opportunity to grow up and except some responsibility for her life and help contribute to ours. She much preferred to saddle me with that burden and take the easy and carefree road of laziness.
> 
> I got stuck with 5 years of alimony. My monthly payment takes care of her condo rent, car payment, fuel, insurance, all utilities, groceries...all the essentials that she needs to sustain life, with some to spare. Basically, her life of fun, with no toil, continues and is still supported by me. Whatever money she makes with her part time job goes towards having a good time. The unfairness of this is unbelievable.
> 
> *It will be interesting to see what happens in two years when my alimony obligation ends. She will be almost 47 years old.* I guess it'll be time to grow up or find some fool to take over where I left off or start cashing out some of the investments she got from me. There seems to be no shortage of safety nets for people like her.


I have witnessed the fall of many like her -Trust Fund babies especially...it's not pretty. But can, at times, be amusing as hell.


----------



## WasDecimated

samyeagar said:


> Sure. Never did any good though. She did what she wanted, and I was called controlling, disrespectful, all those shaming things to keep me in line...
> 
> Do not forget that through all of this, unbeknownst to me, she was NPD with the accompanying victim complex, martyr complex, golden uterus complex.


Golden Uterus Complex....Bahhahahah! That's a good one! :rofl:


----------



## samyeagar

Decimated said:


> Golden Uterus Complex....Bahhahahah! That's a good one! :rofl:


It's a very real thing. Google it. Don't read about it too close to bed time though, as it is the stuff of which nightmares are made.


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> IME..when one wants out of a partnership...in addition to dividing the assets and liabilities...there is the matter of future revenue from the past joint endeavors. This tends to go on for some years. The total cash out option is there - but not usually taken. Similar here -the party that benefited (monetarily) from the labor of the SAHS -would be obliged to compensate the SAHS for the loss of income potential -loss of revenue potential. Or...compensated for the their share of the increased revenue potential of the working spouse.
> 
> I have walked away from many contracts -the end user having determined that contracting with me would not be in their best interest (found a cheaper alternative, etc,,) however, once the contract is signed I am obliged to collect the profits and contribution to overhead that I would have received if the contract had been completed -and have done this EVERY time.
> 
> Once the marriage partnership is signed, confirmed, filed, etc... both partners have an expectation of the profits and contribution to overhead that would have been made should the union have endured.


Only in physical assets. Ie Revenue streams from properties, bonds, stocks, contracts etc. as well as any capital gains from sale of such assets or good will.

I've never seen a partnership where one partner has a claim on all future revenue earned by the other partner after the partnership ends. Most especially not on any future sweat equity earned. That would be silly.

We are talking about a period of time after any contract has either A) expired B) been terminated C) been fulfilled or D) declared void / invalid. These aren't really comparable items. 

Also, alimony does not take into consideration the sacrifice the "working partner" makes by missing out on being with their children.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> Only in physical assets. Ie Revenue streams from properties, bonds, stocks, contracts etc. as well as any capital gains from sale of such assets or good will.
> 
> I've never seen a partnership where one partner has a claim on all future revenue earned by the other partner after the partnership ends. Most especially not on any future sweat equity earned. That would be silly.
> 
> We are talking about a period of time after any contract has either A) expired B) been terminated C) been fulfilled or D) declared void / invalid. These aren't really comparable items.
> 
> Also, alimony does not take into consideration the sacrifice the "working partner" makes by missing out on being with their children.


I didn't say ALL future revenue -simply revenue based on activities of the partnership that occurred before dissolution -but would not be realized until after. For example...a young woman is in medical school...time intensive and very expensive. Her husband foots the bill for this and cares for the children significantly more than the student wife. They divorce 6 months before she opens her own practice. Should the Husband be entitled to compensation for the labor and expense of supporting her through her education? 

How does one quantify the sacrifice of the working partner? Meaning -how would one determine the value -in such a way that could be compensated- for missing out on time with the children? By that reasoning -should employers also be liable for this loss of time? Where does that one end? or even start?


----------



## Kivlor

For clarification of my point, let's assume a partnership dissolves because one of the partners wants out (doesn't matter who). One of the partners put in more "sweat equity" (SAHP) and one put in more $$ equity (Working Parent), but both are 50/50 partners...

So... by the way "Alimony" works, we would say that the SAHP actually deserves not only 50% of all the assets after they are sold, and 50% of any incomes until all sales / transfers have been completed, but further that the SAHP, who has "put in more hours" to the partnership (which I think is a dubious claim at best) they deserve to get 50% of any future revenues the Working Partner makes for the rest of their lives. 

This is not a dissolution of a partnership...


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Could you expound on this a bit? I'm feeling like at a cursory reading, maintaining this position requires a lot of cognitive dissonance. I'm probably missing something.
> 
> Take JLD for example (since she's been used as one throughout this thread): She freely admits she knew what she was getting into at the beginning. No one twisted her arm. She knew the risks. She made an exchange--her at home with the kids, Dug working on the road. Half of everything, plus perhaps a short period of alimony would be just. But for her lifetime? Isn't that viewing her as a "helpless creature in need of support" instead of "telling her to get a job like everyone else"?
> 
> * * * * *
> 
> I know a lot of people keep mentioning the "partnership" term. I know of no partnership agreement, where one partner can say "I want to dissolve the Partnership" and then take ~half of the other partner's income for the rest of their lives. Normally everything earned during the partnership is calculated. It is divided, and the parties go their separate ways. That is just.


No, your plan for me would not be "just." It is like you have not read all the posts.

Going back into the work force at 45 is not like going in at 25. And I am not sure what you mean by saying I knew all the risks. I knew what he wanted and I was willing to go along with it. I trusted him and I still do. And we are both happy with how it has turned out.

I married a man who respects my contributions, and thinks lifetime alimony is what is just. Thank goodness.
_Posted via Mobile Device_
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

MarriedDude said:


> I didn't say ALL future revenue -simply revenue based on activities of the partnership that occurred before dissolution -but would not be realized until after.
> 
> How does one quantify the sacrifice of the working partner? Meaning -how would one determine the value -in such a way that could be compensated- for missing out on time with the children? By that reasoning -should employers also be liable for this loss of time? Where does that one end? or even start?


This is the problem with defining alimony as compensation. There is absolutely no way to determine the economic loss of the SAHP either, at least not in any meaningful way.

Since this is predominately an issue with stay at home mothers, take this example...one SAHM who left her law firm to stay at home and still had not reentered the workforce at the time of divorce, vs the SAHM who dropped out of high school when she got pregnant, never got her GED, and no job at the time of divorce.


----------



## norajane

Seems like a lot of these alimony issues would be non-existent or minimal if people didn't marry so fast and so young, and chose people who didn't have "golden uterus syndrome."

Don't get married unless it is to someone who has a full time job, considers it important to remain employed/viable for employment, and isn't planning on being a SAHS. I know some feel like they thought they had that and then she "changed her mind" but if you've known someone for *years*, I think you'd have a pretty good understanding of how they feel about their jobs, money management, and how children would be raised.

Too many people just rush into marriage too soon and at too young an age, and then are all shocked when their spouse turns out to be different from what they imagined them to be when they fell in love.

Other people prefer and deliberately look for a woman who wants to be a SAHM and then get mad they have to pay alimony years later when she's never had a job. It's no secret that alimony exists, and that SAHS are a risk for both the working and SAHS. Consider ALL the risks before choosing that lifestyle, and don't assume anything.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> No, your plan for me would not be "just." It is like you have not read all the posts.
> 
> Going back into the work force at 45 is not like going in at 25. And I am not sure what you mean by saying I knew all the risks. I knew what he wanted and I was willing to go along with it. I trusted him and I still do. And we are both happy with how it has turned out.
> 
> I married a man who respects my contributions, and thinks lifetime alimony is what is just. Thank goodness.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I think you sell yourself short. In this situation, Dug would have to work until he dies and after the kids are gone, you wouldn't have to work at all, if you got a D next week.

If I knew then, what I knew now, I don't think I would have let my W stay home, I took on way too much risk. Too late now, and thankfully, the risk ended up being zero.


----------



## MarriedDude

jld said:


> No, your plan for me would not be "just." It is like you have not read all the posts.
> 
> *Going back into the work force at 45 is not like going in at 25*. And I am not sure what you mean by saying I knew all the risks. I knew what he wanted and I was willing to go along with it. I trusted him and I still do. And we are both happy with how it has turned out.
> 
> I married a man who respects my contributions, and thinks lifetime alimony is what is just. Thank goodness.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


yes...this goes to the contribution to overhead. It's simply more expensive to live as a 45 year old than a 25 year old...however -the pay for both -at an early stage of employment, that the divorce would cause, would be the same. It's where the difference would need to be made up. In other words -eating up large chunks of a persons working life has a cost. I would pose that any party that profited from this eating of time -should pick up the slack. (No...not the children)


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> I didn't say ALL future revenue -simply revenue based on activities of the partnership that occurred before dissolution -but would not be realized until after. For example...a young woman is in medical school...time intensive and very expensive. Her husband foots the bill for this and cares for the children significantly more than the student wife. They divorce 6 months before she opens her own practice. Should the Husband be entitled to compensation for the labor and expense of supporting her through her education?
> 
> How does one quantify the sacrifice of the working partner? Meaning -how would one determine the value -in such a way that could be compensated- for missing out on time with the children? By that reasoning -should employers also be liable for this loss of time? Where does that one end? or even start?


It is not possible to actually quantify either partner's "*sacrifice*" because there is no "*sacrifice*". I was pointing out the one-sided emotional argument that is being made about how the SAHP "sacrificed", but somehow the working parent did not. They agreed to their partnership and arrangement. One partner worked for financial gain to provide for the partnership, the other put in "sweat equity". Their shares are half. Of course some sort of prenuptial/postnuptial agreement would change that, but I'm trying to keep our ideas simple, so let's not go there at the moment.

In your example, no he should not be entitled to future revenues. At most, I could see a case that he should be repaid for his investment into her career, plus a modest interest rate. At most. That wouldn't be fair, that would be *just*. 

To return to the point about future revenues from past assets, think, if you and I were partners. After the dissolution and sale of assets could you claim half of any future revenues made on my capital gains from our partnership (By my continued investment of these gains)? No. Because we've already split them. They are now mine, and you've got yours. What I do with mine are my business, just as what you do with yours is your business.


----------



## naiveonedave

norajane said:


> Seems like a lot of these alimony issues would be non-existent or minimal if people didn't marry so fast and so young, and chose people who didn't have "golden uterus syndrome."
> 
> Don't get married unless it is to someone who has a full time job, considers it important to remain employed/viable for employment, and isn't planning on being a SAHS. I know some feel like they thought they had that and then she "changed her mind" but if you've known someone for *years*, I think you'd have a pretty good understanding of how they feel about their jobs, money management, and how children would be raised.
> 
> Too many people just rush into marriage too soon and at too young an age, and then are all shocked when their spouse turns out to be different from what they imagined them to be when they fell in love.
> 
> Other people prefer and deliberately look for a woman who wants to be a SAHM and then get mad they have to pay alimony years later when she's never had a job. It's no secret that alimony exists, and that SAHS are a risk for both the working and SAHS. Consider ALL the risks before choosing that lifestyle, and don't assume anything.


I agree w/much of what you posted, but what I see as a critical difference is the SAHS should be expected to find significant employment shortly after D. Especially if the SAHS had a 'decent' job prior to SAH status and did what a lot of SAHS do (volunteer, part time work, etc.). Assuming empty nest, SAHS for ~20 years, with those qualifications and expectations, I would think that the amount per year <1/3 of working spouse take home pay after a couple of years (assuming working spouse is $80-100K/yr before taxes). And that should drop off quickly (meaning 3-5 years). 

Lifetime is just crazy.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> No, your plan for me would not be "just." It is like you have not read all the posts.
> 
> Going back into the work force at 45 is not like going in at 25. And I am not sure what you mean by saying I knew all the risks. I knew what he wanted and I was willing to go along with it. I trusted him and I still do. And we are both happy with how it has turned out.
> 
> I married a man who respects my contributions, and thinks lifetime alimony is what is just. Thank goodness.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


JLD, I think you are conflating the term "fair" with "just". When I use the term "Just" I am referring to "Justice" or "what is due". Fair, as in what is equal in outcome, is not related to justice. These are very different, separate notions. And often they are not aligned.

I've no concerns for an equitable outcome, because life is not equitable. And an attempt to force equity would be an injustice. The just outcome is 50/50. 

And as to your marriage JLD, what is fortunate for you is that Dug thinks he should pay, so perhaps if it weren't court ordered then he still would. And if that were the case it would be just, *because he agreed to it*. Although, I don't think you particularly have much to worry about, it doesn't sound like Dug is going anywhere.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> It is not possible to actually quantify either partner's "*sacrifice*" because there is no "*sacrifice*". I was pointing out the one-sided emotional argument that is being made about how the SAHP "sacrificed", but somehow the working parent did not. They agreed to their partnership and arrangement. One partner worked for financial gain to provide for the partnership, the other put in "sweat equity". Their shares are half. Of course some sort of prenuptial/postnuptial agreement would change that, but I'm trying to keep our ideas simple, so let's not go there at the moment.
> 
> In your example, no he should not be entitled to future revenues. At most, I could see a case that he should be repaid for his investment into her career, plus a modest interest rate. At most. That wouldn't be fair, that would be *just*.
> 
> To return to the point about future revenues from past assets, think, if you and I were partners. *After the dissolution and sale of assets could you claim half of any future revenues made on my capital gains from our partnership* (By my continued investment of these gains)? No. Because we've already split them. They are now mine, and you've got yours. What I do with mine are my business, just as what you do with yours is your business.


Yes...I have been referring to contracts -like a marriage. roughly 50% of the construction contracts we have are long term..5 years is not unheard of. 

If our partnership dissolves before all the contracts are completed (which ALWAYS happens). As i have ongoing exposure, due to the surety, I also get my cut of the split once the contract is done. I took risk...risk that didn't end just because the partnership ended.


----------



## header

jld said:


> Your husband will get Social Security. Are you asking for any percentage of that?


You don't understand how social security works with divorced spouses.

You probably oughta read up on it.


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> yes...this goes to the contribution to overhead. It's simply more expensive to live as a 45 year old than a 25 year old...however -the pay for both -at an early stage of employment, that the divorce would cause, would be the same. It's where the difference would need to be made up. In other words -eating up large chunks of a persons working life has a cost. I would pose that any party that profited from this eating of time -should pick up the slack. (No...not the children)


This completely presupposes that there is nothing gained by the SAHP by being a SAHP. This is ludicrous. If there were no gain, they wouldn't do it. It is a trade. A trade both parties believe are fair. In the West men and women are considered full citizens, with complete autonomy and even the right to vote. None are legally love slaves, forced to do what their partner makes them. 

I don't get how easily people can try to pretend that the SAHP has no agency in their decision to be a SAHP. They know the risks, and they believe it is worth it.


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> Yes...I have been referring to contracts -like a marriage. roughly 50% of the construction contracts we have are long term..5 years is not unheard of.
> 
> If our partnership dissolves before all the contracts are completed (which ALWAYS happens). As i have ongoing exposure, due to the surety, I also get my cut of the split once the contract is done. I took risk...risk that didn't end just because the partnership ended.


You ignored my question, and answered a different one. After that 5 years? *What about when the contracts have ended?*


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> You ignored my question, and answered a different one. After that 5 years? *What about when the contracts have ended?*


Probably because I already referred to that in the first post..........


*IME..when one wants out of a partnership...in addition to dividing the assets and liabilities...there is the matter of future revenue from the past joint endeavors. This tends to go on for some years. *The total cash out option is there - but not usually taken. Similar here -the party that benefited (monetarily) from the labor of the SAHS -would be obliged to compensate the SAHS for the loss of income potential -loss of revenue potential. Or...compensated for the their share of the increased revenue potential of the working spouse.


----------



## jld

header said:


> You don't understand how social security works with divorced spouses.
> 
> You probably oughta read up on it.


Yes, I should.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> This completely presupposes that there is nothing gained by the SAHP by being a SAHP. This is ludicrous. If there were no gain, they wouldn't do it. It is a trade. A trade both parties believe are fair. In the West men and women are considered full citizens, with complete autonomy and even the right to vote. None are legally love slaves, forced to do what their partner makes them.
> 
> I don't get how easily people can try to pretend that the SAHP has no agency in their decision to be a SAHP. They know the risks, and they believe it is worth it.


Will this "gain" feed them? Shelter them? Pay for Heat?

Nope. So what is the Gain?

Your argument also assumes that nothing is done without compensation. Why do you raise children?


----------



## jld

Social Security in the case of a divorced couple:

https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/divspouse.html


----------



## samyeagar

Kivlor said:


> This completely presupposes that there is nothing gained by the SAHP by being a SAHP. This is ludicrous. If there were no gain, they wouldn't do it. It is a trade. A trade both parties believe are fair. In the West men and women are considered full citizens, with complete autonomy and even the right to vote. None are legally love slaves, forced to do what their partner makes them.
> 
> *I don't get how easily people can try to pretend that the SAHP has no agency in their decision to be a SAHP. They know the risks, and they believe it is worth it*.


In addition to this, little consideration is given to the working partners limited opportunity while that dynamic is in place. In order to maintain it, lowering income is not an option, so no job changes unless it is immediately upward, no going back to school. Since the dynamic is often entered into under the guise of what is best for the children, geographic mobility is often an assumed no go too, because it would involve uprooting the children, so relocation and travel are often passed over in favor of the family. That has a direct impact on advancement opportunities.


----------



## WasDecimated

samyeagar said:


> It's a very real thing. Google it. Don't read about it too close to bed time though, as it is the stuff of which nightmares are made.


I Googled it and you're right, it's a real thing and here's the real kicker...they describe my XWW! I guess all the bad stuff she did wasn't her fault after all...because she has a condition. :scratchhead:


----------



## MarriedDude

jld said:


> Social Security in the case of a divorced couple:
> 
> https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/divspouse.html


Seems reasonable to me. 

In my POV..it really comes down to the mechanics of living. Should my wife and I divorce- I would not allow my childrens mother to descend into poverty. 

pretty much because of these items -in no particular order. 

1. For whatever reason we divorce -the divorce does not negate all the good that came of "us"\

2. She is the mother of my sons -for that fact alone is entitled to my respect. Not being married to her does not erase the fact that my sons are half her. 

3. After 25 years -even when she irritates or otherwise pisses me off -I don't believe I am entitled to deprive her of the basics of human existence. 

4. When I had NOTHING -she never wavered in her support. Now that I have a little more than nothing -she is entitled to her cut. Without her -i would not be where i am now. Regardless of what happens -her past actions were honorable.


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> Will this "gain" feed them? Shelter them? Pay for Heat?
> 
> Nope. So what is the Gain?
> 
> Your argument also assumes that nothing is done without compensation. Why do you raise children?


Indeed, there must be some gain, or no one would have kids. Vasectomies are dirt cheap. So is Depo shot.

I don't have kids. I would like to have some someday. I think they are worth the financial cost. So it's a trade I'm willing to take. Some day. With the right Wife.

Are you implying that children aren't worth it? That there is no gain in having them and there is only loss of time, of energy, of money?



> Probably because I already referred to that in the first post..........
> 
> 
> IME..when one wants out of a partnership...in addition to dividing the assets and liabilities...there is the matter of future revenue from the past joint endeavors. This tends to go on for some years. The total cash out option is there - but not usually taken. Similar here -the party that benefited (monetarily) from the labor of the SAHS -would be obliged to compensate the SAHS for the loss of income potential -loss of revenue potential. Or...compensated for the their share of the increased revenue potential of the working spouse.


I've never seen a partnership dissolve, where one partner has to pay the other for the rest of their lives out of their sweat. Out of existing assets yes. Not out of future, non-existent investments, assets and work.

Let's use your construction contracts example--something I'm actually kind of familiar with. If you and I are partners, and we dissolve the partnership 1 of several options happens with the ongoing contracts: 1. we cancel them. 2. we buy each other out, and the sole owner completes them. 3. we sell them to another contractor (assignment of contract). 4. we complete them together, and split the assets, and then finalize the dissolution.

Now, any future contracts you take on separately from this partnership I would have no claim to, and equally, any future contracts I take on separate from the partnership you would have no claim to. Any investment of the capital gains *we have split*, will not have to be split further, nor would revenues from such be divided, as the assets have already been divided. Any future incomes will not be split further.

No matter how much I claim "Well, MarriedDude wouldn't have any future contracts without my contacts that I set him up with" I wouldn't be entitled to your future revenues after dissolution, nor would I receive special compensation.


----------



## jld

MarriedDude said:


> Seems reasonable to me.
> 
> In my POV..it really comes down to the mechanics of living. Should my wife and I divorce- I would not allow my childrens mother to descend into poverty.
> 
> pretty much because of these items -in no particular order.
> 
> 1. For whatever reason we divorce -the divorce does not negate all the good that came of "us"\
> 
> 2. She is the mother of my sons -for that fact alone is entitled to my respect. Not being married to her does not erase the fact that my sons are half her.
> 
> 3. After 25 years -even when she irritates or otherwise pisses me off -I don't believe I am entitled to deprive her of the basics of human existence.
> 
> 4. When I had NOTHING -she never wavered in her support. Now that I have a little more than nothing -she is entitled to her cut. Without her -i would not be where i am now. Regardless of what happens -her past actions were honorable.


You are clearly a very good man, MD. 

Dug is just _appalled_ by the way some want to treat SAHMs.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> Indeed, there must be some gain, or no one would have kids. Vasectomies are dirt cheap. So is Depo shot.
> 
> I don't have kids. I would like to have some someday. I think they are worth the financial cost. So it's a trade I'm willing to take. Some day. With the right Wife.
> 
> Are you implying that children aren't worth it? That there is no gain in having them and there is only loss of time, of energy, of money?
> 
> 
> 
> I've never seen a partnership dissolve, where one partner has to pay the other for the rest of their lives out of their sweat. Out of existing assets yes. Not out of future, non-existent investments, assets and work.
> 
> Let's use your construction contracts example--something I'm actually kind of familiar with. If you and I are partners, and we dissolve the partnership 1 of several options happens with the ongoing contracts: 1. we cancel them. 2. we buy each other out, and the sole owner completes them. 3. we sell them to another contractor (assignment of contract). 4. we complete them together, and split the assets, and then finalize the dissolution.
> 
> Now, any future contracts you take on separately from this partnership I would have no claim to, and equally, any future contracts I take on separate from the partnership you would have no claim to. Any investment of the capital gains *we have split*, will not have to be split further, nor would revenues from such be divided, as the assets have already been divided. Any future incomes will not be split further.
> 
> No matter how much I claim "Well, MarriedDude wouldn't have any future contracts without my contacts that I set him up with" would entitle me to your future revenues after dissolution, nor would I receive special compensation.


Please take a moment and read what I wrote


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> You are clearly a very good man, MD.
> 
> Dug is just _appalled_ by the way some want to treat SAHMs.


The difference between dug and most other people, men and women both, is that he seems to believe that women, simply by being women are above reproach, that a woman, simply by giving birth is a paragon of virtue and worthy of being elevated above all others. In essence, the golden uterus is how it should be.


----------



## anonmd

jld said:


> Social Security in the case of a divorced couple:
> 
> https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/divspouse.html


You do understand you would get 1/2 the amount of his SS but it would not impact the amount he receives? Only possible because government programs do not necessarily need to make financial sense.

BTW, that is also the same amount of SS you are entitled to if you stay married...


----------



## MarriedDude

samyeagar said:


> The difference between dug and most other people, men and women both, is that he seems to believe that women, simply by being women are above reproach, *that a woman, simply by giving birth is a paragon of virtue and worthy of being elevated above all others.* In essence, the golden uterus is how it should be.


I don't think that.


----------



## header

jld said:


> Social Security in the case of a divorced couple:
> 
> https://www.ssa.gov/planners/retire/divspouse.html


You're welcome. 

As jld now knows, divorced spouses are entitled to each other's social security benefits, with no penalty to either one of them. It's not something they settle on or agree to as part of the divorce.


----------



## samyeagar

MarriedDude said:


> I don't think that.


Neither do most people.

With respect to you and your wife...in the event of a divorce for what ever reason, I imagine it would have some level of mutual respect. You would feel a moral obligation to provide for her even without a legal obligation to do so, in turn, I suspect she would not accept more than you could provide, even though she would be legally entitled to more. That is how most divorces end up.

Most, but not all...

My ex wife, even after looking at the numbers and seeing that she was literally getting everything, and leaving me with nothing, still wanted more, and used our children as a bargaining chip. To me, that is deplorable on every level, and is not worthy of my respect, mother of my children or not. My situation is not unique.


----------



## samyeagar

header said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> As jld now knows, divorced spouses are entitled to each other's social security benefits, with no penalty to either one of them. It's not something they settle on or agree to as part of the divorce.


The mindset was very instructive though...going after half of his social security...


----------



## header

samyeagar said:


> The mindset was very instructive though...going after half of his social security...


No one is going after anyone's social security. There's nothing to fight for when it comes to social security and divorced spouses, the laws are clear.


----------



## MarriedDude

samyeagar said:


> Neither do most people.
> 
> With respect to you and your wife...in the event of a divorce for what ever reason, I imagine it would have some level of mutual respect. You would feel a moral obligation to provide for her even without a legal obligation to do so, in turn, I suspect she would not accept more than you could provide, even though she would be legally entitled to more. That is how most divorces end up.
> 
> Most, but not all...
> 
> *My ex wife, even after looking at the numbers and seeing that she was literally getting everything, and leaving me with nothing, still wanted more, and used our children as a bargaining chip. To me, that is deplorable on every level, and is not worthy of my respect, mother of my children or not. My situation is not unique.*


I do understand your situation is not unique. Sad as it is. 

I believe some people feel so entitled, by their mere existence, that they are physically incapable of being reasonable. 

which -sucks for everyone involved. Her gravy train will end -and like I said before -the resulting trainwreck is a site to behold.


----------



## samyeagar

MarriedDude said:


> I do understand your situation is not unique. Sad as it is.
> 
> *I believe some people feel so entitled, by their mere existence, that they are physically incapable of being reasonable. *
> 
> which -sucks for everyone involved. Her gravy train will end -and like I said before -the resulting trainwreck is a site to behold.


The saddest part is that the laws not only support this behavior, they actively enable it.


----------



## MarriedDude

samyeagar said:


> The saddest part is that the laws not only support this behavior, they actively enable it.


Yeah...I'm not a fan of lawyers/laws/courts or Law Enforcement

They seem to reward the worst of humanity to the detriment of men and women that are just out there---doing their level best every damn day


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## naiveonedave

I really don't think JLD or Dug actually are hearing what can happen to men in D. Some fraction are forced to pay for so much, they are worse than destitute (see SY post in this thread). I get support the kids, but it can't be to force the man (or woman for that matter) into debtors prison or homelessness. 

And if they actually do, and are fine with it, they have a messed up sense of morality.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## MarriedDude

Zanne said:


> Wow, bfree! That's very kind of you!
> 
> Maybe the title of my book would be, _*I Did It My Way, And Fell Flat On My Face!*_


True of us all


----------



## Wolf1974

norajane said:


> *Seems like a lot of these alimony issues would be non-existent or minimal if people didn't marry so fast and so young, and chose people who didn't have "golden uterus syndrome."
> *
> Don't get married unless it is to someone who has a full time job, considers it important to remain employed/viable for employment, and isn't planning on being a SAHS. I know some feel like they thought they had that and then she "changed her mind" but if you've known someone for *years*, I think you'd have a pretty good understanding of how they feel about their jobs, money management, and how children would be raised.
> 
> Too many people just rush into marriage too soon and at too young an age, and then are all shocked when their spouse turns out to be different from what they imagined them to be when they fell in love.
> 
> Other people prefer and deliberately look for a woman who wants to be a SAHM and then get mad they have to pay alimony years later when she's never had a job. It's no secret that alimony exists, and that SAHS are a risk for both the working and SAHS. Consider ALL the risks before choosing that lifestyle, and don't assume anything.


i agree on both parts. I think the issue becomes though that when you're young you have no concept of alimony, child support, divorce at all. I know I didn't. What I knew was I truely loved my wife and thought she loved me. I thought so long as I take care of her and put her first she would do the same. Didn't happen. Prenups and divorce and all things associated with it were never thought of. In addition we both were just starting careers so even if I would have had a prenup was nothing to protect and really can't protect future " what I don't have yet" stuff. When I speak to people who aren't divorced they also seemingly have no clue about this stuff. Just not on the radar.

I look at some of the stories here and recognize that I was really lucky in my divorce. I could have been made to sell everything I owned to pay her child support and alimony and keep in mind she has always been a full time worker. I had some leverage and used it thankfully or who knows where my life would be at. On the other side of divorce I am now well educated on alimony, child support, and pre nups.

Guess my only point is can't blame the young for being just that.. Young. If you're my age and you have been divorced and marry fast and without a prenup you're an idiot my opinion.


----------



## header

Zanne said:


> It's unacceptable to me that he has mismanaged his money to this point, but I don't want to make things worse.


Therefore, you are accepting it, and by defnition, it's not unacceptable to you.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## MarriedDude

Zanne said:


> I don't have anything against jld or Dug, but I totally agree with your statement about spousal support. I personally know people who have been destroyed financially by divorce - mostly fathers.
> 
> In my case, I feel like I am healthy and strong and able to work for many more years. IF my husband could afford it, I would benefit greatly from rehabilitative support. I honestly would rather see him use any extra money he has to help out our kids. Also, I am cohabitating with someone who is currently supporting me 100%, so it's not like I'm homeless.
> 
> Meanwhile my boyfriend's STBXW has proposed a settlement of lifetime monthly spousal support which totals more than he makes in a month and *half of his future inheritance!* She was also a SAHM and homeschooled their children, but she has a degree and is currently in a graduate program so she is in a better place than I am, and yet she refuses to work. I honestly do not understand where she is coming from. He says she has always had a sense of entitlement. It is common in their community.


WOW. half his future inheritance....scary. 

My great great grandfather was a believer in "Primogeniture" -everything has passed that way -he did this so what was acquired by and for the family -stays in the family -forever.


----------



## bfree

MarriedDude said:


> True of us all


Amen! Although I treasure each and every screw up I made because it all led me to where I am today. Any deviation and I would not be the same person. And I like who I am.


----------



## karole

I almost hate to say it, but if there is anybody that does deserve permanent alimony, it is Zanne's boyfriend's wife.


----------



## samyeagar

karole said:


> I almost hate to say it, but if there is anybody that does deserve permanent alimony, it is Zanne's boyfriend's wife.


Why?


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## samyeagar

Zanne said:


> Well, as far as I've read on the subject, I don't think she can touch his inheritance, especially since it hasn't even been received yet. His dad is 91 and getting grumpier by the year. He could choose to change his will. *No judge will rule on something that hasn't happened yet.* Also, inheritance is considered separate property unless you co-mingle it.
> 
> It's just her thinking that scares me - she is so entitled! I think a generous rehabilitative settlement is fair. She is the same age as me and as far as I know, in good health.


You'd think, wouldn't ya? One would also think a judge wouldn't rule someone pay more than they earn too, yet they still do.


----------



## MarriedDude

samyeagar said:


> You'd think, wouldn't ya? One would also think a judge wouldn't rule someone pay more than they earn too, yet they still do.


I recall a friend from my time at Fort Knox. He was ordered to pay, in CS and Alimony -all but $50. of his military pay. 

That one was quite nuts


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## Kivlor

samyeagar said:


> In addition to this, little consideration is given to the working partners limited opportunity while that dynamic is in place. In order to maintain it, lowering income is not an option, so no job changes unless it is immediately upward, no going back to school. Since the dynamic is often entered into under the guise of what is best for the children, geographic mobility is often an assumed no go too, because it would involve uprooting the children, so relocation and travel are often passed over in favor of the family. That has a direct impact on advancement opportunities.


Yeah, it's pretty common that there is a court order stating (paraphrasing): "If you lose your job, you still have to pay this amount. If you take a cut in pay, you still have to pay this. If you get injured you still have to pay this. And if you get a pay raise, and we find out, the bill goes up. It cannot decrease. Ever. If you do not or cannot pay, you go to prison. But the bill is still due, and you cannot file bankruptcy, so while in prison, your bill is growing." Where is the justice in this? There isn't. 

Where I grew up, the court can order any amount of alimony they see fit. There is no guideline. In many states here in the US that is the case. The typical alimony case here is ~50% of your gross income. That's pre-tax. However, alimony doesn't count as a deductible expense for income taxes or payroll taxes. 30-40% of income is usually given as child support. 

It's quite common for a person paying both (where I live) to be paying 80-85% of their gross income and still have to pay taxes. Which means they are giving up between 95% and 120% of their income. And if their income goes up, so do the payments. Sooo... prison. Yay...

That's why I say no alimony. At all. None. Zip. Zilch. 



MarriedDude said:


> Please take a moment and read what I wrote


I did. My points stand. Do you dispute my assessment?


----------



## samyeagar

Zanne said:


> Well, as far as I've read on the subject, I don't think she can touch his inheritance, especially since it hasn't even been received yet. His dad is 91 and getting grumpier by the year. He could choose to change his will. No judge will rule on something that hasn't happened yet. Also, inheritance is considered separate property unless you co-mingle it.
> 
> It's just her thinking that scares me - she is so entitled! I think a generous rehabilitative settlement is fair. She is the same age as me and as far as I know, in good health.


The other thing with that is that even though a judge likely wouldn't order such a thing, and it is absurd on the surface, you still have to spend money in court to defend yourself from it happening...

Sort of like when my oldest turned 18 and graduated high school. In virtually every case, this situation is simply a rubber stamp. Formal petition to reduce since he is a graduated adult, judge signs it, and it's done.

My ex wife challenged it stating financial need. She still did not have a job. After several motions, continuances, counter petitions, she finally dropped it when her lawyer requested full financials from me, including my new wife, and my parents, and my lawyer responded in kind, requesting all of hers. My ex wife went berserk that I would have the audacity to do that to her. 

The thing was, unbeknownst to me, my son had been working under the table, and they didn't want to reveal that because he would get in trouble, and his illegal employer would get in trouble too. I did not back down when they told me that. I was called every name imaginable, but refused to be shamed, nor was I willing to take the responsibility for their decisions. She eventually backed down and the end result was the same as it should have been in the very beginning...the way it is in virtually every other case. The problem was, it cost me a butt ton of money to accomplish what should have been a simple formality. Such as it goes in a high conflict divorce.


----------



## OpenWindows

Kivlor said:


> Yeah, it's pretty common that there is a court order stating (paraphrasing): "If you lose your job, you still have to pay this amount. If you take a cut in pay, you still have to pay this. If you get injured you still have to pay this. And if you get a pay raise, and we find out, the bill goes up. It cannot decrease. Ever. If you do not or cannot pay, you go to prison. But the bill is still due, and you cannot file bankruptcy, so while in prison, your bill is growing." Where is the justice in this? There isn't.


I agree that this system can lead to a lot of injustice. But how would you propose dealing with the issue of people quitting their jobs and working off the books to avoid paying their court-ordered child support and alimony?

Maybe better options to re-evaluate the amount of payments, and investigations if a payer claims ridiculously low income?


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> Yeah, it's pretty common that there is a court order stating (paraphrasing): "If you lose your job, you still have to pay this amount. If you take a cut in pay, you still have to pay this. If you get injured you still have to pay this. And if you get a pay raise, and we find out, the bill goes up. It cannot decrease. Ever. If you do not or cannot pay, you go to prison. But the bill is still due, and you cannot file bankruptcy, so while in prison, your bill is growing." Where is the justice in this? There isn't.
> 
> Where I grew up, the court can order any amount of alimony they see fit. There is no guideline. In many states here in the US that is the case. The typical alimony case here is ~50% of your gross income. That's pre-tax. However, alimony doesn't count as a deductible expense for income taxes or payroll taxes. 30-40% of income is usually given as child support.
> 
> It's quite common for a person paying both (where I live) to be paying 80-85% of their gross income and still have to pay taxes. Which means they are giving up between 95% and 120% of their income. And if their income goes up, so do the payments. Sooo... prison. Yay...
> 
> That's why I say no alimony. At all. None. Zip. Zilch.
> 
> 
> 
> I did. My points stand. Do you dispute my assessment?


Yes - -I dispute most of your claims...and the entire claim that you read what I wrote.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Kivlor said:


> Yeah, it's pretty common that there is a court order stating (paraphrasing): "If you lose your job, you still have to pay this amount. If you take a cut in pay, you still have to pay this. If you get injured you still have to pay this. And if you get a pay raise, and we find out, the bill goes up. It cannot decrease. Ever. If you do not or cannot pay, you go to prison. But the bill is still due, and you cannot file bankruptcy, so while in prison, your bill is growing." Where is the justice in this? There isn't.
> 
> Where I grew up, the court can order any amount of alimony they see fit. There is no guideline. In many states here in the US that is the case. The typical alimony case here is ~50% of your gross income. That's pre-tax. However, alimony doesn't count as a deductible expense for income taxes or payroll taxes. 30-40% of income is usually given as child support.
> 
> It's quite common for a person paying both (where I live) to be paying 80-85% of their gross income and still have to pay taxes. Which means they are giving up between 95% and 120% of their income. And if their income goes up, so do the payments. Sooo... prison. Yay...
> 
> That's why I say no alimony. At all. None. Zip. Zilch.
> 
> 
> 
> I did. My points stand. Do you dispute my assessment?




Incorrect
Alimony is deductible and must be reported as income by the receiver.

CS is not deductible. 

You can verify on the IRS website. 

I will answer your earlier question when I'm not on my mobile.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## MarriedDude

samyeagar said:


> The other thing with that is that even though a judge likely wouldn't order such a thing, and it is absurd on the surface, you still have to spend money in court to defend yourself from it happening...
> 
> Sort of like when my oldest turned 18 and graduated high school. In virtually every case, this situation is simply a rubber stamp. Formal petition to reduce since he is a graduated adult, judge signs it, and it's done.
> 
> My ex wife challenged it stating financial need. She still did not have a job. After several motions, continuances, counter petitions, she finally dropped it when her lawyer requested full financials from me, including my new wife, and my parents, and my lawyer responded in kind, requesting all of hers. My ex wife went berserk that I would have the audacity to do that to her.
> 
> *The thing was, unbeknownst to me, my son had been working under the table, and they didn't want to reveal that because he would get in trouble, and his illegal employer would get in trouble too. I did not back down when they told me that. I was called every name imaginable, but refused to be shamed, nor was I willing to take the responsibility for their decisions. She eventually backed down and the end result was the same as it should have been in the very beginning...the way it is in virtually every other case. * The problem was, it cost me a butt ton of money to accomplish what should have been a simple formality. Such as it goes in a high conflict divorce.


Under the table hiring is one of the worst labor abuses that exists. It promises a better deal to those whoefully ignorant of the consequences. 

it also allows cheating on the part of the business that pays this way. They need to play by the rules....or be burnt down....meaning forced to pay the fines/workers comp/taxes like the rest of us


----------



## anonmd

Kivlor said:


> That's pre-tax. However, alimony doesn't count as a deductible expense for income taxes or payroll taxes. 30-40% of income is usually given as child support.


Not true:

Basic Rules

Spousal support must be reported as taxable income by the recipient and can be deducted by the paying spouse, unless you agree otherwise. (This is the opposite of child support, which is neither taxable nor deductible.) In general, a higher earner will be looking for deductions, and a lower earner will not have to pay much tax on the amount of support received, so the taxable/deductible structure works fine. Any increase in tax for the recipient can often be offset by the significant tax savings for the higher earner, who can make up the difference to the recipient either with an additional payment or in another way. For example, the paying spouse might agree to simply pay the recipient spouse’s tax liability.

You can, however, make spousal support payments nontaxable and nondeductible as long as it goes both ways and you both agree (you’ll state as much in your marital settlement agreement). You might do this if the spouse receiving support is in a higher tax bracket than the paying spouse (this would be unusual, but might happen if the recipient spouse is receiving reimbursement support and has significant assets), or if the paying spouse doesn’t need the tax deduction and the recipient spouse doesn’t want to report the income.

If you do decide to make spousal support nontaxable and nondeductible, the recipient spouse should simply not report the income on that year’s tax return.


----------



## Buddy400

A husband and wife work in the same occupation and make the same income. When they decide to have children, they come to a mutual decision that the wife will be a SAHM. 

15 years later:

1)	The husband decided that he’d rather bang his hot young secretary and divorces his wife.

2)	The wife started going to the gym once the kids were in school. She started getting in shape, hooked up with her personnel trainer and divorced her husband.

It seems to me that there needs to be some way to allow alimony in the first case but not the second.


----------



## header

Kivlor said:


> The typical alimony case here is ~50% of your gross income. That's pre-tax. However, alimony doesn't count as a deductible expense for income taxes or payroll taxes.


You realize you wrote a contraction there. Alimony is pretax, that's correct, meaning that it's a deductable expense on your income tax.



Kivlor said:


> 30-40% of income is usually given as child support.


That sounds very high. In my state it's 17% for one and 23% for 2 children.


----------



## MarriedDude

Buddy400 said:


> A husband and wife work in the same occupation and make the same income. When they decide to have children, they come to a mutual decision that the wife will be a SAHM.
> 
> 15 years later:
> 
> 1)	The husband decided that he’d rather bang his hot young secretary and divorces his wife.
> 
> 2)	The wife started going to the gym once the kids were in school. She started getting in shape, hooked up with her personnel trainer and divorced her husband.
> 
> It seems to me that there needs to be some way to allow alimony in the first case but not the second.


I don't agree. Maybe the wife should pay alimony


----------



## EleGirl

I don't think that anyone in their right mind wants a man (or a woman) to have to pay alimony to the point that they are left with $50 a month.

Alimony is awarded in only 15% of divorces. It' usually temporary rehabilitative alimony. The average alimony payment is about $300 a month. 

States keep updating their laws to narrow the circumstances under which it can be paid and are temporary rehabilitative alimony far more likely than permanent alimony.


----------



## MarriedDude

EleGirl said:


> I don't think that anyone in their right mind wants a man (or a woman) to have to pay alimony to the point that they are left with $50 a month.
> 
> Alimony is awarded in only 15% of divorces. It' usually temporary rehabilitative alimony. The average alimony payment is about $300 a month.
> 
> States keep updating their laws to narrow the circumstances under which it can be paid and are temporary rehabilitative alimony far more likely than permanent alimony.


Yep..

The Army however -allows stupidity to punished in the most extreme ways. Adultery, in the unit I was in -was never tolerated


----------



## OpenWindows

Buddy400 said:


> A husband and wife work in the same occupation and make the same income. When they decide to have children, they come to a mutual decision that the wife will be a SAHM.
> 
> 15 years later:
> 
> 1)	The husband decided that he’d rather bang his hot young secretary and divorces his wife.
> 
> 2)	The wife started going to the gym once the kids were in school. She started getting in shape, hooked up with her personnel trainer and divorced her husband.
> 
> It seems to me that there needs to be some way to allow alimony in the first case but not the second.


If that ever happens, I'm going into the private investigator business! Lots of money to be made getting proof of affairs, and also trying and failing to get proof if they didn't happen!

Lots of money to be made for lawyers too, because nearly EVERY high-earning spouse will be making accusations of infidelity, whether they're true or not. It sounds like a huge burden on the court system.


----------



## Kivlor

lifeistooshort said:


> Incorrect
> Alimony is deductible and must be reported as income by the receiver.
> 
> CS is not deductible.
> 
> You can verify on the IRS website.
> 
> I will answer your earlier question when I'm not on my mobile.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


You are correct, I misspoke. It does count for income, but as I recall it doesn't count for "payroll" (Medicare / SSI) so you still pay the taxes on that end. 

I was thinking CS--which I somehow missed in my previous statement.


----------



## header

OpenWindows said:


> It sounds like a huge burden on the court system.


That's why most courts don't make rullings based on fault.

It's too complicated, expensive, difficult to prove, time consuming etc.

It's not "fair" to the betrayed spouse, but it's practical. 

People need to realize that if they're not happy with the results of the courts in regards to their divorce, they have only themselves to blame.

No one forced them to get married, and then when it all goes south, it's dumped in the hands of some judge to sort it all out.

We married the wrong person. We need to own it.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Buddy400 said:


> A husband and wife work in the same occupation and make the same income. When they decide to have children, they come to a mutual decision that the wife will be a SAHM.
> 
> 15 years later:
> 
> 1)	The husband decided that he’d rather bang his hot young secretary and divorces his wife.
> 
> 2)	The wife started going to the gym once the kids were in school. She started getting in shape, hooked up with her personnel trainer and divorced her husband.
> 
> It seems to me that there needs to be some way to allow alimony in the first case but not the second.



Alimony isn't a tool to punish. It's practical to get a spouse on their feet.

Her banging her trainer has nothing to do with her giving up her career for the family, sleazy as it is.

I wonder if alimony shouldn't be formula calculated based on the length of the marriage and the age of the person receiving it.

A 60 year old married for 35 years is far different then a 35 year old married for 15 years. 35 year old can take her arse back to work, though she might need a temporary boost while she builds her income.

It may not be reasonable to ask 60 year old to go back to work.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

header said:


> You realize you wrote a contraction there. Alimony is pretax, that's correct, meaning that it's a deductable expense on your income tax.
> 
> 
> 
> That sounds very high. In my state it's 17% for one and 23% for 2 children.


I am currently paying over 30% of my gross income for two kids.

Alimony is not a deductible expense technically. It is part of the adjusted gross income, deducted from gross income. It counts as taxable income to the recipient, thus counts towards earned income credit.

To put the calculations into perspective...

My gross pay was around $5000 per month. My CS was 32% of that leaving me with $3400, and her $1600. My alimony payment was $2500 per month, leaving me with $900 gross, and her $4100, or a yearly income of $49,200, without actually having a job, of which only $30,000 was taxable. She wanted that for the rest of her life.

As it happened, I was only on the hook for all of that for five years, and very fortunately, she got remarried so the alimony ended after a fight, so I was only really in that situation for a bit over three years.


----------



## MarriedDude

lifeistooshort said:


> *Alimony isn't a tool to punish. It's practical to get a spouse on their feet.*
> 
> Her banging her trainer has nothing to do with her giving up her career for the family, sleazy as it is.
> 
> I wonder if alimony shouldn't be formula calculated based on the length of the marriage and the age of the person receiving it.
> 
> A 60 year old married for 35 years is far different then a 35 year old married for 15 years. 35 year old can take her arse back to work, though she might need a temporary boost while she builds her income.
> 
> It may not be reasonable to ask 60 year old to go back to work.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


^^^^This. Its about the basic mechanics of living.


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> Yeah, it's pretty common that there is a court order stating (paraphrasing): "If you lose your job, you still have to pay this amount. If you take a cut in pay, you still have to pay this. If you get injured you still have to pay this. And if you get a pay raise, and we find out, the bill goes up. It cannot decrease. Ever. If you do not or cannot pay, you go to prison. But the bill is still due, and you cannot file bankruptcy, so while in prison, your bill is growing." Where is the justice in this? There isn't.
> 
> Where I grew up, the court can order any amount of alimony they see fit. There is no guideline. In many states here in the US that is the case. The typical alimony case here is ~50% of your gross income. That's pre-tax. However, alimony doesn't count as a deductible expense for income taxes or payroll taxes. 30-40% of income is usually given as child support.
> 
> It's quite common for a person paying both (where I live) to be paying 80-85% of their gross income and still have to pay taxes. Which means they are giving up between 95% and 120% of their income. And if their income goes up, so do the payments. Sooo... prison. Yay...
> 
> That's why I say no alimony. At all. None. Zip. Zilch.
> 
> 
> 
> I did. My points stand. Do you dispute my assessment?


Since we don’t know which state you live in, we cannot verify your assessment. 

The reason that courts say that support does not go down if the payer loses their job, etc is that those who would have to pay used to quit their job or start working under the table to hide income.

Everyone is hurt by those who do things like that.


----------



## Kivlor

OpenWindows said:


> I agree that this system can lead to a lot of injustice. But how would you propose dealing with the issue of people quitting their jobs and working off the books to avoid paying their court-ordered child support and alimony?
> 
> Maybe better options to re-evaluate the amount of payments, and investigations if a payer claims ridiculously low income?


I would propose no alimony and no child support, which eliminates these problems. 

We take the risk of being divorced when we get married. It's enough to risk one's time, energy and progeny. The law need not make indentured servants out of anyone; we outlawed that years ago.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> I would propose no alimony and *no child support, which eliminates these problems. *
> 
> We take the risk of being divorced when we get married. It's enough to risk one's time, energy and progeny. The law need not make indentured servants out of anyone; we outlawed that years ago.


Soooo. There it is.


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> Since we don’t know which state you live in, we cannot verify your assessment.
> 
> The reason that courts say that support does not go down if the payer loses their job, etc is that those who would have to pay used to quit their job or start working under the table to hide income.
> 
> Everyone is hurt by those who do things like that.


So, punish the innocent, just to make sure we get the guilty? 

I thought I lived in a country that believed in some basic principles of law; Innocent until proven guilty; mens rea, etc...

* * * * * *

Contract law doesn't change _that_ much from state to state, btw. I work all over and have partnerships operating in 4 states. I'm actually in the process of ending 2 partnerships as we speak.


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> Soooo. There it is.


And if you'd like to start up a convo on that topic, I'd be glad to discuss it. No need to expound on it in this thread and T/J anymore than we have here.

My issue with alimony is different from my issue with CS.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> I would propose no alimony and no child support, which eliminates these problems.
> 
> We take the risk of being divorced when we get married. It's enough to risk one's time, energy and progeny. The law need not make indentured servants out of anyone; we outlawed that years ago.


They sound pretty similar to me


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> And if you'd like to start up a convo on that topic, I'd be glad to discuss it. No need to expound on it in this thread and T/J anymore than we have here.
> 
> My issue with alimony is different from my issue with CS.


I propose a thread title:

"Guys that don't want to pay for their children to eat - - -and other rights"


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> Alimony isn't a tool to punish. It's practical to get a spouse on their feet.
> 
> Her banging her trainer has nothing to do with her giving up her career for the family, sleazy as it is.


Okay.

How do I change my vote to "No Alimony under any circumstances"?


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> So, punish the innocent, just to make sure we get the guilty?
> 
> I thought I lived in a country that believed in some basic principles of law; Innocent until proven guilty; mens rea, etc...


I’m not saying that the innocent should be punished. I only stated why the courts started being very leery of payers start losing their jobs at a much higher rate than others not paying ordered support.



Kivlor said:


> Contract law doesn't change _that_ much from state to state, btw. I work all over and have partnerships operating in 4 states. I'm actually in the process of ending 2 partnerships as we speak.


When you end a partnership/corporation there are usually financial considerations. Sometimes one party ends up paying the other to buy them out, or pay royalties for some time.

Two business partners are equally yoked, according to the law.

A man and SHAM are not equally yoked. The SAHM is has lost earning power because of the marriage if she has given up working for some time in order to raise the couple's children.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Buddy400 said:


> Okay.
> 
> How do I change my vote to "No Alimony under any circumstances"?


No problem. Don't like alimony? Either don't have a family or don't support a stay at home mom, and don't marry and have kids with someone who makes substantially less then you.

If you insist on kids be sure to sacrifice your career just as much as their mother and be a 50/50 partner in all things kids.

Then alimony shouldn't be an issue for you. 

I'm not a huge believer in alimony, though there are circumstances that I think it's applicable. 

I didn't ask for it when I had the chance.

But once again it's roots are practical, not emotional. It is not a tool to punish. 

If we're going to punish then cheating men should pay MORE alimony then they would have been ordered, but that's not going to happen nor should it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Kivlor

Buddy400 said:


> A husband and wife work in the same occupation and make the same income. When they decide to have children, they come to a mutual decision that the wife will be a SAHM.
> 
> 15 years later:
> 
> 1)	The husband decided that he’d rather bang his hot young secretary and divorces his wife.
> 
> 2)	The wife started going to the gym once the kids were in school. She started getting in shape, hooked up with her personnel trainer and divorced her husband.
> 
> It seems to me that there needs to be some way to allow alimony in the first case but not the second.


I like this idea, but it would be bringing back at-fault divorce, and I think a lot of folk would sooner revolt than accept that lol. This is just. But because we can't do that, I am opposed to alimony.


----------



## MarriedDude

lifeistooshort said:


> No problem. Don't like alimony? Either don't have a family or don't support a stay at home mom, and don't marry and have kids with someone who makes substantially less then you.
> 
> If you insist on kids be sure to sacrifice your career just as much as their mother and be a 50/50 partner in all things kids.
> 
> Then alimony shouldn't be an issue for you.
> 
> I'm not a huge believer in alimony, though there are circumstances that I think it's applicable.
> 
> I didn't ask for it when I had the chance.
> 
> *But once again it's roots are practical, not emotional. It is not a tool to punish. *
> 
> If we're going to punish then cheating men should pay MORE alimony then they would have been ordered, but that's not going to happen nor should it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Exactly. Who should pay to feed clothe and shelter the former spouse? If not the other former partner than who? 

Welfare, Food Stamps, ATDC????


----------



## header

samyeagar said:


> only really in that situation for a bit over three years.


What do you mean, alimony ended after a fight?

She got married, you petition the court to dismiss, and it's over.

What's to fight about?


----------



## naiveonedave

MarriedDude said:


> Exactly. Who should pay to feed clothe and shelter the former spouse? If not the other former partner than who?
> 
> Welfare, Food Stamps, ATDC????


If and only if the exSAHS gets a job The lack of consequences for the exSAHS for not getting a job are non-existent


----------



## MarriedDude

header said:


> What do you mean, alimony ended after a fight?
> 
> She got married, you petition the court to dismiss, and it's over.
> 
> What's to fight about?


Probably because court cases, complaints, response, counter -claims....none of them have much basis in reality or are even remotely reasonable..

If I had all the money I've spent on lawyers back....I could probably build one in a clandestine lab


----------



## jb02157

Just the notion of alimony at all is silly. Why have money available to a a woman from a man who is no longer involved with her? It 's more like welfare for women only and the main reason why men elect to stay in a marriage they are unhappy with, because they would be poor if they went ahead with a divorce. With it available, women will continue to push for a divorce in a stiuation where she is only mildly unhappy with the marriage. One thing, is for sure, it's the sole reason why I continue to be married.


----------



## EleGirl

MarriedDude said:


> Exactly. Who should pay to feed clothe and shelter the former spouse? If not the other former partner than who?
> 
> Welfare, Food Stamps, ATDC????


Yes... until the person can find a job and get on their feet. It happens all the time since alimony is actually pretty rare. Most divorces happen early in the marriage and most divorces are between low income individuals.


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> Exactly. Who should pay to feed clothe and shelter the former spouse? If not the other former partner than who?
> 
> Welfare, Food Stamps, ATDC????


Charity? Or perhaps the divorcee should pay for him-/herself? I generally think highly enough of people to believe they are capable of taking care of themselves. 

Divorce is a horrible thing. When it happens, it's up to each individual person to take care of themselves. If a former spouse should have to physically care for their X, why should we let them divorce? Why not just say "Marriage is permanent!" That fixes the problem.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> Charity? Or perhaps the divorcee should pay for him-/herself? *I generally think highly enough of people to believe they are capable of taking care of themselves.*
> 
> Divorce is a horrible thing. When it happens, it's up to each individual person to take care of themselves. If a former spouse should have to physically care for their X, why should we let them divorce? Why not just say "Marriage is permanent!" That fixes the problem.


Or...you think so little of them that seeing them punished by hunger and poverty is perfectly fine. Hiding the contempt with praise. 

Transparent


----------



## header

Kivlor said:


> If a former spouse should have to physically care for their X, why should we let them divorce? Why not just say "Marriage is permanent!" That fixes the problem.


Makes perfect sense, and holds people accountable.

You said your vows, you exchanged rings, you signed a certificate.

That deal is non revocable. 

I bet if most people looked at that as the alternative to alimony they'd realize they could have done worse.


----------



## samyeagar

header said:


> What do you mean, alimony ended after a fight?
> 
> She got married, you petition the court to dismiss, and it's over.
> 
> What's to fight about?


She got remarried, I petitioned to end alimony. She contested it ending on the grounds of continued financial hardship. It ended up having multiple hearings, multiple continuances, modified petitions on her part. It took almost two months to resolve, all the while she was married, and I had to keep paying until the final judgement ending it.


----------



## naiveonedave

MarriedDude said:


> Or...you think so little of them that seeing them punished by hunger and poverty is perfectly fine. Hiding the contempt with praise.
> 
> Transparent


If we divorce, why am I at all responsible for anything from her, especially if she files and there is no adultery, abuse or addiction on my part.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## naiveonedave

samyeagar said:


> She got remarried, I petitioned to end alimony. She contested it ending on the grounds of continued financial hardship. It ended up having multiple hearings, multiple continuances, modified petitions on her part. It took almost two months to resolve, all the while she was married, and I had to keep paying until the final judgement ending it.


you should have been awarded damages of legal fees and repaid alimony from wedding bells until it was stopped.


----------



## MarriedDude

naiveonedave said:


> If we divorce, why am I at all responsible for anything from her, especially if she files and there is no adultery, abuse or addiction on my part.


Why is the taxpayer? 

Why is the wily and elusive charity?

Note: I am talking about limited time-frame, subsistence allowance -to make sure that the displaced spouse is not homeless, hungry, etc. I'm not talking about the outrageous BS that many have put up with. Enough funds that for a limited time this person would not be destitute. Timeframe dependant upon factors that are easily scalable. 

As the innocent citizen in this paradigm...I didn't marry this person, Didn't stake some portion of my future on them...the higher earning spouse did. 

Pick Better.


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> I’m not saying that the innocent should be punished. I only stated why the courts started being very leery of payers start losing their jobs at a much higher rate than others not paying ordered support.


I realized after I posted, that I probably came across wrong. I didn't mean to say that you believe that we should punish the innocent with the guilty, as much as to point out that it is the obvious effect of the system as it exists.

And I have an issue with that system. Because it masquerades as justice, when it is inherently unjust. I'm not okay with placing the burden of proof on the accused. Man or woman. Stay at Home Parent or not. And that is how this works.



> When you end a partnership/corporation there are usually financial considerations. Sometimes one party ends up paying the other to buy them out, or pay royalties for some time.
> 
> Two business partners are equally yoked, according to the law.
> 
> A man and SHAM are not equally yoked. The SAHM is has lost earning power because of the marriage if she has given up working for some time in order to raise the couple's children.


Two business owners are equally yoked according to the law, but in reality, rarely are partnerships "equal". One party often gives more effort than another. For example, in the 2 partnerships I am currently ending, we contributed equal amounts of capital, but I have contributed substantially more hours to the businesses. In the end, I will get half; as I should. 

I do not get to claim that "I gave up my time to run some of the day-to-day operations, and I deserve extra compensation now!" And any judge in such a case would laugh me out. It was my choice to work extra, because I was better at it than them. My gain was not in an extra share in the capital, but I'd be remiss to think I gained nothing from it--my investments would likely have done less well under their care.

If I wanted pay for the hours, I should have made the partnership pay me when I worked the hours, not years later now that the partnership is ending.


----------



## samyeagar

naiveonedave said:


> you should have been awarded damages of legal fees and repaid alimony from wedding bells until it was stopped.


That was the kicker...I had to petition the courts for a judgement making the alimony ending retroactive to the date of marriage, with an order for her to repay what was over paid. I did that, and eventually won after multiple dates due to her contesting it.

Good luck to me recovering it though. She still doesn't have a job.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## MarriedDude

samyeagar said:


> That was the kicker...I had to petition the courts for a judgement making the alimony ending retroactive to the date of marriage, with an order for her to repay what was over paid. I did that, and eventually won after multiple dates due to her contesting it.
> 
> *Good luck to me recovering it though*. She still doesn't have a job.


Exactly. The judgement is the easy part. Perfecting it and actually getting any cash....usually impossible

irritating as hell


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## header

samyeagar said:


> She got remarried, I petitioned to end alimony. She contested it ending on the grounds of continued financial hardship. It ended up having multiple hearings, multiple continuances, modified petitions on her part. It took almost two months to resolve, all the while she was married, and I had to keep paying until the final judgement ending it.


That is completely over the top unfair. 

Remarriage ends alimony. 

Unless of course the judge decides it doesn't necessarily work that way.


----------



## samyeagar

MarriedDude said:


> Exactly. The judgement is the easy part. Perfecting it and actually getting any cash....usually impossible
> 
> irritating as hell


I am really looking forward to a few months from now. My daughter turns 18 and graduates from high school in June, so it is going to be child support ending part two...

What she doesn't realize is that my youngest has been asking about coming to live with my wife and I. He is 14 and finishing 8th grade, going into high school, so it is possible there will also be a petition for full physical custody along with the child support petition.


----------



## samyeagar

header said:


> That is completely over the top unfair.
> 
> Remarriage ends alimony.
> 
> Unless of course the judge decides it doesn't necessarily work that way.


It was inevitable that it would, just as with most of the things I have gone through. The difference is, in most cases, these things are formalities, with my ex, they are long, drawn out , expensive fights for what should have been a given.


----------



## WorkingOnMe

I look at alimony like severance pay. I mean, if a person is in a marriage (a contract) and they are providing services as a spouse and receiving financial support in return, then why would they continue receiving financial support if they stop providing services? That doesn't happen in any other contract, except in the case of a short term severance package. Other injustices (such as giving up a career to focus on building wealth with a higher earning spouse) should be settled with a property settlement. Unless of course the spouse receiving alimony agrees to continue doing the paying spouse's laundry!


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> Or...you think so little of them that seeing them punished by hunger and poverty is perfectly fine. Hiding the contempt with praise.
> 
> Transparent


You caught me MD, I think so little of the people I know, that seeing them punished by hunger and poverty is fine. 

It's not that I look at what wonders we've built, and I think all of us are capable of amazing things. It's not that I hold others to the same standard--self-sufficient--that I hold myself. It's not that I think that it is better for us as individuals to help care for each other, rather than using the strong arm of the law to do things at the end of a gun.

It's my utter disdain for human life. _Contempt is my armour, hate is my shield._


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> Yes... until the person can find a job and get on their feet. It happens all the time since alimony is actually pretty rare. Most divorces happen early in the marriage and most divorces are between low income individuals.


I know that alimony awards are not common as a percentage of total divorces, as most divorces are not high conflict. Most of the alimony awards are by and large reasonable, and cases such as mine are even less common.

I do have to wonder though...is it because the courts got it right in those cases, or because those involved, such as some in this thread, simply didn't wield the full power of the law and go after everything they could get. I suspect it is more the latter...


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> You caught me MD, I think so little of the people I know, that seeing them punished by hunger and poverty is fine.
> 
> It's not that I look at what wonders we've built, and I think all of us are capable of amazing things. It's not that I hold others to the same standard--self-sufficient--that I hold myself. It's not that I think that it is better for us as individuals to help care for each other, rather than using the strong arm of the law to do things at the end of a gun.
> 
> It's my utter disdain for human life. _Contempt is my armour, hate is my shield._


Contempt....check

Sarcasm....check

whats next? (Funny picture...and pop psychology) check

I believe that you believe in what you have said. No Alimony...*No Child Support.* You said it. OWN IT.


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> Contempt....check
> 
> Sarcasm....check
> 
> whats next?


Sarcastic, yes. But where's the contempt?










Projection maybe?


----------



## lifeistooshort

MarriedDude said:


> Exactly. Who should pay to feed clothe and shelter the former spouse? If not the other former partner than who?
> 
> Welfare, Food Stamps, ATDC????


In fairness I think the former spouse should be asked to support themselves to the extent it's reasonable to ask.

What is reasonable to ask can be highly subjective.

In an ideal world people would be able to jump in and out of the workforce as they needed, but that's not how things work.


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> Two business owners are equally yoked according to the law, but in reality, rarely are partnerships "equal". One party often gives more effort than another. For example, in the 2 partnerships I am currently ending, we contributed equal amounts of capital, but I have contributed substantially more hours to the businesses. In the end, I will get half; as I should.
> 
> I do not get to claim that "I gave up my time to run some of the day-to-day operations, and I deserve extra compensation now!" And any judge in such a case would laugh me out. It was my choice to work extra, because I was better at it than them. My gain was not in an extra share in the capital, but I'd be remiss to think I gained nothing from it--my investments would likely have done less well under their care.
> 
> If I wanted pay for the hours, I should have made the partnership pay me when I worked the hours, not years later now that the partnership is ending.


Here is an example...

The company makes and installs some product. 

One partner (A) runs the business from the office, doing sales, books, shipping, packaging, filed the patent paperwork, invested in the entire company, etc.

The other partner (B) did the major design, and invested equally, and is the one who makes the product and installs it.

Because A did all the overhead type of work in the company, it freed B up to make and produce a lot more product than B could have ever done if he had to do what A does too.

Now A leaves the company. A has a financial investment and thus equally owns the patent and product.

A was not just an employee but an investor. A is entitled to half of the equaity in the company, half the good will , etc. A also is entitled to a royalty for every one of the products when sold.

So B will be paying something to A, as long as the company is active, for each item sold. And B either has to buy A out or has to pay a monthly amount for x number of years to return A's investment + equity on the investment.


----------



## MarriedDude

lifeistooshort said:


> In fairness I think the former spouse should be asked to support themselves to the extent it's reasonable to ask.
> 
> What is reasonable to ask can be highly subjective.
> 
> In an ideal world people would be able to jump in and out of the workforce as they needed, but that's not how things work.


Totally agree. To the extent that it is reasonable. That's the rub...deciding what is reasonable...should the 65 year old woman that was a SAHM have to get that greeter job at walmart -because her Ex..doesn't believe in Alimony?

Should some small children get to eat Mac& Cheese 3 times a day because daddy doesn't believe in sticking around or in child support?


----------



## lifeistooshort

samyeagar said:


> I am really looking forward to a few months from now. My daughter turns 18 and graduates from high school in June, so it is going to be child support ending part two...
> 
> What she doesn't realize is that my youngest has been asking about coming to live with my wife and I. He is 14 and finishing 8th grade, going into high school, so it is possible there will also be a petition for full physical custody along with the child support petition.


My husband and his ex didn't fight over anything, but she did build her lifestyle around the CS. Of course eventually their daughter turned 18 and my husband paid a good chunk for her to get her PhD in pharmacy and be debt free.

She currently makes 6 figures with no debt.

But he continued to pay support for an extra year, until daughter was 19, because he knew the transition would be tough. We had only been involved a couple of years at that point and I didn't find out until it ended....but even then she whined about how she didn't know how she was going to manage without it.

Hon, that's your problem. She works too, so her lifestyle is her problem. She didn't make plans for the day that CS would end, unlike me who knew the day my ex retired from the military I wouldn't get squat as he'd have nothing.

That's exactly what happened....I've chosen not to make a stink because he does carry medical and dental for them and it's not good for my kids for their father to struggle. And I make good money as does my husband. On the plus side my ex is super nice to me :wink2:

But my point was that I knew the day would come and I planned for it. Unlike hb's ex, who did not and whined when the day came, even though she got an extra year.


----------



## samyeagar

MarriedDude said:


> Totally agree. To the extent that it is reasonable. That's the rub...deciding what is reasonable...should the 65 year old woman that was a SAHM have to get that greeter job at walmart -because her Ex..doesn't believe in Alimony?
> 
> Should some small children get to eat Mac& Cheese 3 times a day because daddy doesn't believe in sticking around or in child support?


And what do you do with a 40 year old healthy, able bodied woman holding her breath and stomping her feet saying you can't make me work cause I don't wanna?


----------



## MarriedDude

samyeagar said:


> And what do you do with a 40 year old healthy, able bodied woman holding her breath and stomping her feet saying you can't make me work cause I don't wanna?


You lawyer up or simply offer her a stack of cash to go away. 

It's amazing what those little bundles of hundreds do to normally smart people. They kinda lose their minds. Then....Bam it's over.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Zanne said:


> Thanks for replying, @lifeistooshort. I made my assumption based on the general consensus around here in regards to cheating. I'm sorry to throw you in the mix!
> 
> I brought up infidelity because it seems like one of the most popular reasons why people think a judge should not award alimony. Since you are in support of a person such as jld receiving lifetime alimony if she were to divorce, I was wondering if infidelity would sway your opinion.
> 
> My staying home to raise kids was not my husband's idea. I am old fashioned that way and I wanted nothing more in life than to be a mom and homemaker. But life doesn't turn out the way it does in fairy tales, nor in the dreams of silly teenage girls. I learned that the hard way. I made my choices - and so did jld. She likely knows the risk, as did I.
> 
> I am not going ask for alimony because I know my husband can't afford it. A little rehabilitative support would be great! But I'm not going to bankrupt the father of my kids. Now I am scrambling to have a retirement plan in place. According to CNN Money, nearly 25% of my income will need to be saved so that I can retire at a cost of living close to my current salary - which isn't very much. That sucks. But that's life!



No worries :smile2:

In general I think this should be a joint decision because it breeds so much resentment when one spouse is on the hook to support the other. Especially if they supported spouse is the one to end things.

Even though it was not your husband's idea, did he strongly oppose it? Or did he happily or grudgingly go along with it?

But like I've said in other posts I don't believe alimony is punitive; as much as it upsets people to think a dirtbag (to be clear I do NOT mean you.....your marital situation is much more complicated then you just having an affair and leaving) will get paid for it, alimony has to do with the contributions a stay at home has already made. These are not negated if they behave badly later on. The husband has already benefited from the contribution.

By that logic a husband of a sahm who cheats or otherwise behave badly should pay twice as much as he would've. He would've been on the hook for alimony as compensaion for her contribution and to get her on her feet, but if alimony is also about punishing how is he getting punished? He'd have to pay anyway, so to sufficiently punish him he should be double.

Few people would go or that and it would be unfair.

Alimony is practical, not punitive.


----------



## MarriedDude

EleGirl said:


> Here is an example...
> 
> The company makes and installs some product.
> 
> One partner (A) runs the business from the office, doing sales, books, shipping, packaging, filed the patent paperwork, invested in the entire company, etc.
> 
> That other partner (B) did the major designed, and invested equally, and I the one who makes the product and installs it.
> 
> Because A did all the overhead type of work in the company, it freed B up to make and produce a lot more product than B could have ever done if he had to do what A does.
> 
> Now A leaves the company. A has a financial investment and thus equally owns the patent and product.
> 
> A was not just an employee but in investor. A is entitled to half of the equaity in the company, half the good will , etc. A also is entitled to a royalty for ever one of the products when sold.
> 
> So B will be paying something to A as long as the company is active for each item sold. And B either has to buy A out or has to pay a monthly amount for x number of years to return A's investment + equity on the investment.


You explained that way better than I did


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> Here is an example...
> 
> The company makes and installs some product.
> 
> One partner (A) runs the business from the office, doing sales, books, shipping, packaging, filed the patent paperwork, invested in the entire company, etc.
> 
> That other partner (B) did the major designed, and invested equally, and I the one who makes the product and installs it.
> 
> Because A did all the overhead type of work in the company, it freed B up to make and produce a lot more product than B could have ever done if he had to do what A does.
> 
> Now A leaves the company. A has a financial investment and thus equally owns the patent and product.
> 
> A was not just an employee but in investor. A is entitled to half of the equaity in the company, half the good will , etc. A also is entitled to a royalty for ever one of the products when sold.
> 
> So B will be paying something to A as long as the company is active for each item sold. And B either has to buy A out or has to pay a monthly amount for x number of years to return A's investment + equity on the investment.


Thanks for the response Ele.

So, to come to point, what royalties are we selling in this now dissolved marriage? The business has ended. There are some jointly owned assets that can't be disposed of--children for example--so we split the costs down the middle until they're gone, and go about our separate business.

What doesn't happen is that all future moneys earned by B--regardless of how they are earned--are split equally with A. Which is what we are talking about here. Or flip it and say B leaves. A still doesn't pay B anything beyond the regular division of assets. 

The problem with the above analogy Ele is that it likens a persons future *hourly wage* to intellectual property that is owned in common between the two partners. But a person cannot be owned (not with the outlawing of slavery and indentured servitude and serfdom). Which is why I used my above example, where I invested more time than my partner. 

I'll give another example. I have a current business. My partner in this business works with me daily, but I work by far more hours. My income and income potential have both grown drastically because of my relationship with this guy--he has introduced me to all sorts of new clients and opened a market to me that would otherwise not easily have been available. Even though he works far less hours, the benefits are quite real.

If we dissolve our partnership, he doesn't get income off of any future deals with those clients--outside of what was under contract or being negotiated before dissolution. We bring our business to a conclusion, and go our separate ways. 

I had someone lose to me on this (legally) ~3 years ago. Business partner wanted out, so we dissolved. He thought the clients were his (and they were his before we partnered), but the clients came with me when we ended it. (Of their own volition.) And he had claim to any projects we had A) presented while partners B) Were currently negotiating and C) under contract. He did not and to this day does not have any claim to all future projects I work with those clients. He wanted a % of all future deals and tried to claim it. The judge laughed him out. 

And if those clients left with him, instead of me, I'd have no claim either. Of course, jurisdictions vary, so YMMV.

Someone can't own a percent of another person. This is one of the last vestiges of indentured servitude left in the West.


----------



## Kivlor

Another thought on the royalties analogy:

If this were like royalties / IP, then why does alimony get set to a specific amount, regardless of whether the payer slows down their business? That's not how royalties generally work... Nothing sold? No royalties collected. No royalties payed.

Again, I think if you take the time to consider this, you will see that alimony is actually just a form of indentured servitude. The assets have been split. Any incomes / equity gains on assets not yet sold (ie rent houses) will be split until they are sold. But the work gained by your own sweat after dissolution? That's yours and yours alone.

The working parent can no more get back their lost opportunities with their children than the SAHP can recapture their lost potential income. And it's not up to either to make it up to the other. If you really think they should, then shouldn't the working parent receive preference for custody, rather than the SAHP?


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> Another thought on the royalties analogy:
> 
> If this were like royalties / IP, then why does alimony get set to a specific amount, regardless of whether the payer slows down their business? That's not how royalties generally work... Nothing sold? No royalties collected. No royalties payed.
> 
> *Again, I think if you take the time to consider this, you will see that alimony is actually just a form of indentured servitude. *The assets have been split. Any incomes / equity gains on assets not yet sold (ie rent houses) will be split until they are sold. But the work gained by your own sweat after dissolution? That's yours and yours alone.
> 
> The working parent can no more get back their lost opportunities with their children than the SAHP can recapture their lost potential income. And it's not up to either to make it up to the other. If you really think they should, then shouldn't the working parent receive preference for custody, rather than the SAHP?


Huh....

Is that how Child Support works too?


----------



## EleGirl

Kivlor said:


> Another thought on the royalties analogy:
> 
> If this were like royalties / IP, then why does alimony get set to a specific amount, regardless of whether the payer slows down their business? That's not how royalties generally work... Nothing sold? No royalties collected. No royalties payed.
> 
> Again, I think if you take the time to consider this, you will see that alimony is actually just a form of indentured servitude. The assets have been split. Any incomes / equity gains on assets not yet sold (ie rent houses) will be split until they are sold. But the work gained by your own sweat after dissolution? That's yours and yours alone.
> 
> The working parent can no more get back their lost opportunities with their children than the SAHP can recapture their lost potential income. And it's not up to either to make it up to the other. If you really think they should, then shouldn't the working parent receive preference for custody, rather than the SAHP?


I gave one example. We could come up with dozens of them and argue until we are blue in the face.

If a woman, like jld, gives up her chance for a well paid career to raise and home school children so that her husband can concentrate on his career, she has invested in his career.

Alimony came about as a way to protect women from a horrible wrong that had been going on for hundreds of years, if not thousands.

It used to be that women could not find work at a living wage. When they married a man, all of her assets, inheritance, etc became his. And when he was tried of her he could throw her in the street with nothing, and he kept everything, the children, her assets, her inheritance, etc. Women were forced to stay in bad marriages because they had no choice. So alimony was introduced. Additionally the average life span was something like 48 years.

Things have changed and society is trying to figure out how to deal with things now.

Alimony is seldom awarded regardless of the length of the marriage and whether or not a woman (or man) was a SAHP. 

I know quite a few women who were SHAM's for 25 to 35 years. Many of them also worked in a business owned by both them and their husband but never took a wage because they felt that they were working for the common good.

Then their husband typically had an affair, hid the assets, 'closed' the business and threw their wife on the street. They work at Walmart and places like that for minimum wage. Now the women, in their 60's are working full time at Walmart at minimum wage. They will never be able to retire.

Their ex-husbands somehow miraculously recovered. He and the OW are enjoying the wife's 50% of assets.

I know a lot of divorced women. I know only one who gets alimony and it's because her husband refused to get a good attorney and basically let it happen. 

I know many woman whose husbands left them, usually for another woman. They were court ordered to pay child support. Not one of them pays the full amount if they pay at all. My ex (son's father) paid child support, about half of the amount ordered.

One friend of mine was left with 3 sons, the youngest was 6 months old when her husband ran off with the OW. His income has always been around $200,000 annually. In the last 18 years he paid child support a few times... about $2000 worth in 18 years. He also spent almost no time with his children. when he did spend time it was their mother who paid for the boys to travel to see their father.

I could go down a list of case after case like this.

If you want to post all kinds of horror stories, there are plenty of them on all sides.


----------



## EleGirl

Going back to this...

If a woman, like jld, gives up her chance for a well paid career to raise and home school children so that her husband can concentrate on his career, she has invested in his career.

If a man does not want to pay alimony if he ever gets divorced, then he has no business expecting his wife to be a SAHM and be the major child care giver... so that he can spend the majority of his effort on building his career. 

Instead a man who does not want to pay support needs to marry a woman who can support herself equally as well as he can support himself. And then he needs to share 50/50 in house work and child care so that his wife can also pursue a career. 

If a man wants 50/50 child custody if divorce ever falls on his marriage, he needs to make sure that he is equally as much a care giver to his children as their mother is. It is only right that if one parent is the primary care giver, that the primary care giver should have primary custody. 

Once men start insisting that their jobs allow them equal time off with no penalty for taking care of the family, we will finally have family friendly work places.


----------



## MarriedDude

EleGirl said:


> I gave one example. We could come up with dozens of them and argue until we are blue in the face.
> 
> If a woman, like jld, gives up her chance for a well paid career to raise and home school children so that her husband can concentrate on his career, she has invested in his career.
> 
> Alimony came about as a way to protect women from a horrible wrong that had been going on for hundreds of years, if not thousands.
> 
> It used to be that women could not find work at a living wage. When they married a man, all of her assets, inheritance, etc became his. And when he was tried of her he could throw her in the street with nothing, and he kept everything, the children, her assets, her inheritance, etc. Women were forced to stay in bad marriages because they had no choice. So alimony was introduced. Additionally the average life span was something like 48 years.
> 
> Things have changed and society is trying to figure out how to deal with things now.
> 
> Alimony is seldom awarded regardless of the length of the marriage and whether or not a woman (or man) was a SAHP.
> 
> I know quite a few women who were SHAM's for 25 to 35 years. Many of them also worked in a business owned by both them and their husband but never took a wage because they felt that they were working for the common good.
> 
> Then their husband typically had an affair, hid the assets, 'closed' the business and threw their wife on the street. They work at Walmart and places like that for minimum wage. Now the women, in their 60's are working full time at Walmart at minimum wage. They will never be able to retire.
> 
> Their ex-husbands somehow miraculously recovered. He and the OW are enjoying the wife's 50% of assets.
> 
> I know a lot of divorced women. I know only one who gets alimony and it's because her husband refused to get a good attorney and basically let it happen.
> 
> I know many woman whose husbands left them, usually for another woman. They were court ordered to pay child support. Not one of them pays the full amount if they pay at all. My ex (son's father) paid child support, about half of the amount ordered.
> 
> One friend of mine was left with 3 sons, the youngest was 6 months old when her husband ran off with the OW. His income has always been around $200,000 annually. In the last 18 years he paid child support a few times... about $2000 worth in 18 years. He also spent almost no time with his children. when he did spend time it was their mother who paid for the boys to travel to see their father.
> 
> I could go down a list of case after case like this.
> 
> *If you want to post all kinds of horror stories, there are plenty of them on all sides.*


Exactly. Focusing on the outliers does nothing to help with the very real problem of someone (typically the female) becoming destitute because of a divorce. For every guy I hear about that got hosed....I can see -women raising young children...alone...with a horrible standard of living. 

That is what bothers me the most. Grown men refusing child-support...complaining about how his ex is wasting the 150 bucks a month he sends her for 3 kids....3 kids...I mean seriously -WTF

Adults so ready to push aside their partner of however many years...push them into the poor house...for what...pay-back..to teach them that poverty sucks? They know that...we all know that. 

Helping your family to maintain the highest standard of living that you can in a maintainable way is what is truly best for all. Married or Divorced -once you have children -it's about whats best for them...regardless. 

Just one guys opinion.


----------



## sapientia

breeze said:


> *I think that it should be phased out in all the countries where it still occurs. *The world is changing and laws should keep up with the times. The older generations have lived in a time where they were encouraged to give up all independence and become reliant solely on their spouse for money. This is no longer the case. As those generations move into retirement, so should the laws that were relevant only to them be retired.


This^. No able-bodied adult person should be dependent on another.

Want to avoid alimony? Marry (or don't) someone who shares your intellect, work ethic, and values.

If there were no alimony, a lot of women would be much more thoughtful about getting married and pregnant.


----------



## sapientia

MarriedDude said:


> Helping your family to maintain the highest standard of living that you can in a maintainable way is what is truly best for all. Married or Divorced -once you have children -it's about whats best for them...regardless.


Agreed on the child support. However, getting married and having children does not = free ride for the adult woman. Particularly in today's western society, there are lots of ways a woman can train for a career in < 5 years. Bookkeeper, nurse, adminstrative, banking... lots of jobs for those willing to work. Even school expense or timing isn't a valid argument anymore with all the free online courses and degrees. Take them at night and on weekends when the kids are sleeping. More options today than ever before.


----------



## EleGirl

sapientia said:


> Agreed on the child support. However, getting married and having children does not = free ride for the adult woman. Particularly in today's western society, there are lots of ways a woman can train for a career in < 5 years. Bookkeeper, nurse, adminstrative, banking... lots of jobs for those willing to work. Even school expense or timing isn't a valid argument anymore with all the free online courses and degrees. Take them at night and on weekends when the kids are sleeping. More options today than ever before.


Free online degrees?????


----------



## sapientia

EleGirl said:


> Free online degrees?????


Well, nearly so. Coursera and UDacity both have options to certify you took their courses. It's a fraction of what a uni course costs. I've audited several. The quality is better than many instructors I know.

College disruption is already happening. Despite the best efforts of my former colleagues to believe otherwise. :grin2:


----------



## naiveonedave

One thing that is totally missed in these analysis... I will use this ficticous example. Person A - teacher, good salary, so $50K/year. Person B - MBA - starts at $100K/year when married. MBA progresses to CEO @$2M/year. Person A takes time off to raise kids, they then D. 

If they had never married, person A would be at ~$50K/year forever. Person B would still have progressed to make $2M/year. IMO, alimony should be ~$50K/yr for a couple of years, then end, allowing person A to retrain to catch up and then be on their own.


----------



## samyeagar

EleGirl said:


> I gave one example. We could come up with dozens of them and argue until we are blue in the face.
> 
> If a woman, like jld, gives up her chance for a well paid career to raise and home school children so that her husband can concentrate on his career, she has invested in his career.
> 
> Alimony came about as a way to protect women from a horrible wrong that had been going on for hundreds of years, if not thousands.
> 
> It used to be that women could not find work at a living wage. When they married a man, all of her assets, inheritance, etc became his. And when he was tried of her he could throw her in the street with nothing, and he kept everything, the children, her assets, her inheritance, etc. Women were forced to stay in bad marriages because they had no choice. So alimony was introduced. Additionally the average life span was something like 48 years.
> 
> Things have changed and society is trying to figure out how to deal with things now.
> 
> Alimony is seldom awarded regardless of the length of the marriage and whether or not a woman (or man) was a SAHP.
> 
> I know quite a few women who were SHAM's for 25 to 35 years. Many of them also worked in a business owned by both them and their husband but never took a wage because they felt that they were working for the common good.
> 
> Then their husband typically had an affair, hid the assets, 'closed' the business and threw their wife on the street. They work at Walmart and places like that for minimum wage. Now the women, in their 60's are working full time at Walmart at minimum wage. They will never be able to retire.
> 
> Their ex-husbands somehow miraculously recovered. He and the OW are enjoying the wife's 50% of assets.
> 
> I know a lot of divorced women. I know only one who gets alimony and it's because her husband refused to get a good attorney and basically let it happen.
> 
> *I know many woman whose husbands left them, usually for another woman. They were court ordered to pay child support. Not one of them pays the full amount if they pay at all. My ex (son's father) paid child support, about half of the amount ordered.*
> 
> One friend of mine was left with 3 sons, the youngest was 6 months old when her husband ran off with the OW. His income has always been around $200,000 annually. In the last 18 years he paid child support a few times... about $2000 worth in 18 years. He also spent almost no time with his children. when he did spend time it was their mother who paid for the boys to travel to see their father.
> 
> I could go down a list of case after case like this.
> 
> If you want to post all kinds of horror stories, there are plenty of them on all sides.


Not saying this is the case here, but if you ask my ex wife, she'll be all to happy to tell you how I don't pay my child support...even though I signed up to have it deducted directly from my paycheck by the state so that there could be no confusion as to whether I was current or not. Self protection measure on my part, and yes, I am current.

So why haven't you, or they gone after the fathers who are behind on their support? The fathers of my wife's kids paid almost nothing in child support either. She has lots of reasons why she didn't go after them, but they all boil down to the fact that she simply didn't pursue enforcement of the orders.


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> Adults so ready to push aside their partner of however many years...push them into the poor house...for what...pay-back..to teach them that poverty sucks? They know that...we all know that.
> 
> Helping your family to maintain the highest standard of living that you can in a maintainable way is what is truly best for all. Married or Divorced -once you have children -it's about whats best for them...regardless.
> 
> Just one guys opinion.


If you aren't married anymore, your spouse is not family. You have no responsibility to further make them or their life comfortable. If people want the lifestyle of being married, I would suggest not divorcing.

Child support is a separate issue--which Elegirl previously asked us not to discuss, so I won't. 



EleGirl said:


> And yea, this thread is not about child support. So lets stop the child support thread jack.


----------



## tech-novelist

MarriedDude said:


> I do understand your situation is not unique. Sad as it is.
> 
> I believe some people feel so entitled, by their mere existence, that they are physically incapable of being reasonable.
> 
> which -sucks for everyone involved. Her gravy train will end -and like I said before -the resulting trainwreck is a site to behold.


Yes, some people are like that. For example, my ex-wife tried to get *all *of my assets even though:

1. She had a job where she essentially couldn't be fired except for totally outrageous behavior (tenure);
2. She made more than I did, and;
3. She had more assets than I did.

Fortunately we had no children and she wasn't able to take me to the cleaners, but she tried.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> So, punish the innocent, just to make sure we get the guilty?
> 
> I thought I lived in a country that believed in some basic principles of law; Innocent until proven guilty; mens rea, etc...


Yes, except for men.


----------



## Kivlor

@EleGirl

Your first response was a complete non-sequitor. It had nothing to do with my post or argument. Did you mean to respond to someone else with that? 

When I put my time or capital into one of my partnerships, I invest in the partnership, not the partner. Same with my partners, they invest in the partnership, not in me. No matter what I claim in court, I will never have the right to the future labor of my partners after dissolution. (theft excluded)

This is the case in a marriage. In the case of a SAHP and a working parent their works are for the partnership. The one is investing capital in the partnership, the other is investing labor.



> If a woman, like jld, gives up her chance for a well paid career to raise and home school children so that her husband can concentrate on his career, she has invested in his career. If a man does not want to pay alimony if he ever gets divorced, then he has no business expecting his wife to be a SAHM and be the major child care giver... so that he can spend the majority of his effort on building his career.


It would require a high level of double-think to hold this position while simultaneously believing:



> If a man wants 50/50 child custody if divorce ever falls on his marriage, he needs to make sure that he is equally as much a care giver to his children as their mother is. It is only right that if one parent is the primary care giver, that the primary care giver should have primary custody.


The man in your scenario invested his money in the wife and children, and ought to have equal access to the children; if we follow the reasoning of your first statement. In fact, if we follow your reasoning, he would have *extra* access to the children, because he invested in them by letting the mother spend time with them while he worked.

I hold both people to the same standards. I find it interesting that you do not; just as I find it humorous that this is a gender issue for so many in this thread. It's not for me, it is an issue of justice.


----------



## samyeagar

technovelist said:


> Yes, some people are like that. For example, my ex-wife tried to get *all *of my assets even though:
> 
> 1. She had a job where she essentially couldn't be fired except for totally outrageous behavior (tenure);
> 2. She made more than I did, and;
> 3. She had more assets than I did.
> 
> Fortunately we had no children and she wasn't able to take me to the cleaners, but she tried.


That is also part of my frustration with all of this. Even when things are absurd, and there is no way for their petition to be granted, with someone who is high conflict, it costs a lot of time and money to defend, only end up where everyone knew it would in the first place. It ends up essentially being a war of attrition...not because it's justified, but simply because they can.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> I would propose no alimony and no child support, which eliminates these problems.
> 
> We take the risk of being divorced when we get married. It's enough to risk one's time, energy and progeny. The law need not make indentured servants out of anyone; we outlawed that years ago.


There should be predefined arrangements for marital obligations that people should be able to select from. If they don't like any of them, they should be able to modify one of them, and have it adjudged before they get married. No changes should be allowed after that without joint agreement.

If someone is naive enough to agree to alimony or child support in advance, okay, but I don't think very many people would if it were spelled out in advance.


----------



## naiveonedave

samyeagar said:


> That is also part of my frustration with all of this. Even when things are absurd, and there is no way for their petition to be granted, with someone who is high conflict, it costs a lot of time and money to defend, only end up where everyone knew it would in the first place. It ends up essentially being a war of attrition...not because it's justified, but simply because they can.


unfortunately, judges don't often force the loser to pay the winners legal fees. That would put an end to a lot of this. Really, the lawyers who bring the ridiculous stuff forward should just not get paid.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> You caught me MD, I think so little of the people I know, that seeing them punished by hunger and poverty is fine.
> 
> It's not that I look at what wonders we've built, and I think all of us are capable of amazing things. It's not that I hold others to the same standard--self-sufficient--that I hold myself. It's not that I think that it is better for us as individuals to help care for each other, rather than using the strong arm of the law to do things at the end of a gun.
> 
> It's my utter disdain for human life. _Contempt is my armour, hate is my shield._


Obviously you are a libertarian, since that is exactly how all libertarians are: horrible people who want everyone else to suffer.


----------



## Kivlor

technovelist said:


> Obviously you are a libertarian, since that is exactly how all libertarians are: horrible people who want everyone else to suffer.


I am actually a right-leaning libertarian. And now that I've been found out, I can boast that I will be kicking back, putting my feet up, and enjoying a fine cigar while I make an orphan I purchased polish my monocle. Another orphan will be polishing my boots. I'll return to this when my monocle is ready. 

Because that's how libertarians roll. >


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> I am actually a right-leaning libertarian. And now that I've been found out, I can boast that I will be kicking back, putting my feet up, and enjoying a fine cigar while I make an orphan I purchased polish my monocle. Another orphan will be polishing my boots. I'll return to this when my monocle is ready.
> 
> Because that's how libertarians roll. >


Aha! I found a picture of you:
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/70/Rich_Uncle_1946_Cover.jpg


----------



## lifeistooshort

technovelist said:


> Yes, some people are like that. For example, my ex-wife tried to get *all *of my assets even though:
> 
> 1. She had a job where she essentially couldn't be fired except for totally outrageous behavior (tenure);
> 2. She made more than I did, and;
> 3. She had more assets than I did.
> 
> Fortunately we had no children and she wasn't able to take me to the cleaners, but she tried.


And here is a prime example of why I said alimony is not punitive. 

You left your wife for another woman. I'm not going to argue whether you actually had an affair.... I've no doubt your current wife is a better match for you. 

But it remains that if alimony is a tool to punish the case might have been made that you did in fact owe your ex wife. 

You may have argued it but you may not have won if the intent was to punish. 

Fortunately alinomy is not a tool to punish. Imagine the can that would open.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## samyeagar

lifeistooshort said:


> *And here is a prime example of why I said alimony is not punitive. *
> 
> You left your wife for another woman. I'm not going to argue whether you actually had an affair.... I've no doubt your current wife is a better match for you.
> 
> But it remains that if alimony is a tool to punish the case might have been made that you did in fact owe your ex wife.
> 
> You may have argued it but you may not have won if the intent was to punish.
> 
> Fortunately alinomy is not a tool to punish. Imagine the can that would open.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


The intent of alimony may not be punitive, but the implementation can have a punitive impact.


----------



## thefam

samyeagar said:


> The difference between dug and most other people, men and women both, is that he seems to believe that women, simply by being women are above reproach, that a woman, simply by giving birth is a paragon of virtue and worthy of being elevated above all others. In essence, the golden uterus is how it should be.


Hmmm ... I don't get that from Dug at all. It seems more like a strong sense of unwavering commitment. Which seems to foster a sense of safety and security with JLD.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## thefam

I can't read this whole thread. But I think alimony is warranted when a man asks his wife to dedicate her life to taking care of the home and kids. And any wife who agrees to it better make sure that man is worthy of the sacrifice. Any thing can happen i realize that but that's what insurances and adequate savings are for. I do feel that SAHM'S are likewise responsible for upholding their end of the bargain to the best of their ability. 

That being said it is probably best to be a SAHM/SAHW only if you truly get fulfilment from the role.


----------



## samyeagar

Zanne said:


> I think it was @Wolf1974 who already mentioned this, but worth saying again that for most people none of this is on our radars when we get married, especially if you are younger. I had no clue until I started researching for my own divorce.
> 
> I think it's understandable if divorce isn't on your mind when you are getting married, at least not the first time. After that? I would expect prenuptial agreements, etc., for second marriages, but I guess people are blinded by love.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


That's why you make it part of the marriage licensing process. I think it would also be worth considering to have a renewal process say every five years where both parties have to agree to the extension. No fault has already put the emphasis on the business side of marriage, why not go all the way.


----------



## samyeagar

thefam said:


> I can't read this whole thread. But I think alimony is warranted when a man asks his wife to dedicate her life to taking care of the home and kids. And any wife who agrees to it better make sure that man is worthy of the sacrifice. Any thing can happen i realize that but that's what insurances and adequate savings are for. I do feel that SAHM'S are likewise responsible for upholding their end of the bargain to the best of their ability.
> 
> That being said it is probably best to be a SAHM/SAHW only if you truly get fulfilment from the role.


What about when it is the wife who wants to be the SAHM, when the husband doesn't want her to? One of the over arching ideas seems to be that it is the husband who is asking that, wanting that from his wife, and she agrees...hence the sacrifice. That is not always the case.

I suspect that there are many husbands who are internally very leary of their wives deciding to be SAHM's, but simply don't voice it for a whole host of reasons. Granted, in the end, it is on them for not speaking up, just as it is on the wife for not speaking up if she was uncomfortable with doing it.


----------



## lifeistooshort

samyeagar said:


> The intent of alimony may not be punitive, but the implementation can have a punitive impact.


Yes, but it shouldn't be. 

There's no reason your ex can't get off her lazy rear and get a job.

You do realize that you should have dumped her when it became clear you were dealing with a lazy, entitled piece of work? 

You have to own that part. Hopefully as your kids become adults your dealings with her will end, for the most part.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

thefam said:


> I can't read this whole thread. But I think alimony is warranted when a man asks his wife to dedicate her life to taking care of the home and kids. And any wife who agrees to it better make sure that man is worthy of the sacrifice. Any thing can happen i realize that but that's what insurances and adequate savings are for. I do feel that SAHM'S are likewise responsible for upholding their end of the bargain to the best of their ability.
> 
> That being said it is probably best to be a SAHM/SAHW only if you truly get fulfilment from the role.


I like a lot of this. I disagree somewhat with the last line, though.

I have often felt discouraged, bored, lonely from being home with kids for days, weeks, years on end. But I did it anyway, because I thought it was the right thing to do. And when I see how my older kids are turning out, I think I was right to persevere, regardless of my feelings.

We don't necessarily feel happy in the moment. But persevering, if it is in the service of good, often does bring happiness in the end.

I think there is often too much emphasis on happiness in the moment on TAM, and in the world in general, versus happiness in the end.

I definitely married wisely. I can't tell you how much gratitude I have felt for Dug the last few days, as this thread has developed. He rejects the doctrine of selfishness that several on this thread seem to espouse. 

Dug respects women, and values mothers. I feel ashamed for the very minor complaints I have about him, and told him so. And yet he still told me there is nothing to be ashamed of, that my honest complaints offer him food for thought on how to be a better man. 

I am suspicious of anything Tara Palmatier writes. I looked up that golden uterus idea, and saw it explained on her site. I am sorry your ex did not treat you with courtesy and respect, Sam. I can understand how you would be vulnerable to the influence of someone like Tara Palmatier. But I think her teachings largely embitter men towards women, and create and sustain suspicion.

Zanne, your situation is very different from mine. There is really nothing for your husband to offer you. There probably never was.

I wish I could think of something inspiring to say. Maybe the best thing to come out of this conversation, so far, is that we are seeing the characters of some of the men on this thread very clearly. That is what often happens when talk turns to money. We see what people's true values are.


----------



## samyeagar

lifeistooshort said:


> Yes, but it shouldn't be.
> 
> There's no reason your ex can't get off her lazy rear and get a job.
> 
> You do realize that you should have dumped her when it became clear you were dealing with a lazy, entitled piece of work?
> 
> *You have to own that part.* Hopefully as your kids become adults your dealings with her will end, for the most part.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh, I certainly do own that part. And I know I should have divorced her much earlier. Many times I should have made different choices with regards to her.

There is a reason she doesn't get a job...there is no accountability and absolutely nothing compelling her to do so. In fact, it has been fully enabled, and implicitly encouraged by the courts. 

At the very least, since the intent of alimony is rehabilitative, requiring tangible progress and milestone achievements should be required to continue receiving it.


----------



## EleGirl

samyeagar said:


> That's why you make it part of the marriage licensing process. I think it would also be worth considering to have a renewal process say every five years where both parties have to agree to the extension. No fault has already put the emphasis on the business side of marriage, why not go all the way.


It is already part of the marriage 'license' process. The laws in most states allow for the situation where one of the spouses is a SAHP.

It would be a burden on couples to have them have to go through a legal process every 5 years.


----------



## jb02157

MarriedDude said:


> Or...you think so little of them that seeing them punished by hunger and poverty is perfectly fine. Hiding the contempt with praise.
> 
> Transparent


This happens to divorced men all the time, they are forced to live in poverty while their X spends his money on foolish things. Like it was said before, divorced people should be able to take care of themselves, if they can't they should be allowed to to do it.


----------



## thefam

samyeagar said:


> That's why you make it part of the marriage licensing process. I think it would also be worth considering to have a renewal process say every five years where both parties have to agree to the extension. No fault has already put the emphasis on the business side of marriage, why not go all the way.


I believe it is a decision that should be made before marriage and conception. If either party reneged either way they should be prepared for the consequences.


----------



## thefam

jld said:


> I like a lot of this. I disagree somewhat with the last line, though.
> 
> I have often felt discouraged, bored, lonely from being home with kids for days, weeks, years on end. But I did it anyway, because I thought it was the right thing to do. And when I see how my older kids are turning out, I think I was right to persevere, regardless of my feelings.
> 
> We don't necessarily feel happy in the moment. But persevering, if it is in the service of good, often does bring happiness in the end.
> 
> I think there is often too much emphasis on happiness in the moment on TAM, and in the world in general, versus happiness in the end.
> 
> I definitely married wisely. I can't tell you how much gratitude I have felt for Dug the last few days, as this thread has developed. He rejects the doctrine of selfishness that several on this thread seem to espouse.
> 
> Dug respects women, and values mothers. I feel ashamed for the very minor complaints I have about him, and told him so. And yet he still told me there is nothing to be ashamed of, that my honest complaints offer him food for thought on how to be a better man.
> 
> I am suspicious of anything Tara Palmatier writes. I looked up that golden uterus idea, and saw it explained on her site. I am sorry your ex did not treat you with courtesy and respect, Sam. I can understand how you would be vulnerable to the influence of someone like Tara Palmatier. But I think her teachings largely embitter men towards women, and create and sustain suspicion.
> 
> Zanne, your situation is very different from mine. There is really nothing for your husband to offer you. There probably never was.
> 
> I wish I could think of something inspiring to say. Maybe the best thing to come out of this conversation, so far, is that we are seeing the characters of some of the men on this thread very clearly. That is what often happens when talk turns to money. We see what people's true values are.


I agree in principle because I believe it is best for the children to have the mother as primary caregiver at the very least through kindergarten. I just fear for the well being of the family if the mother resents the sacrifice and takes it out on either the children or the husband. Most likely it would be the husband.


----------



## jld

thefam said:


> I agree in principle because I believe it is best for the children to have the mother as primary caregiver at the very least through kindergarten. I just fear for the well being of the family if the mother resents the sacrifice and takes it out on either the children or the husband. Most likely it would be the husband.


My default thinking is that the man can handle it. 

But if I should have learned anything on TAM, it is that *my* default thinking is often wrong.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> *My default thinking is that the man can handle it. *
> 
> But if I should have learned anything on TAM, it is that *my* default thinking is often wrong.


Your default thinking is correct in that your man can handle you in your marriage.

What you should have learned being on TAM is that not every woman is like you, nor is every man like dug. We are all different. Not better, not worse, not superior, not inferior...simply different.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Your default thinking is correct in that your man can handle you in your marriage.
> 
> What you should have learned being on TAM is that not every woman is like you, nor is every man like dug. We are all different. Not better, not worse, not superior, not inferior...simply different.


And those differences create a lot of stress for women. Perhaps for men, too. But surely for women.

Some do not realize how much easier their lives could be, if the men would change. If the men are able to change.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> And those differences create a lot of stress for women. Perhaps for men, too. But surely for women.
> 
> *Some do not realize how much easier their lives could be, if the men would change. If the men are able to change*.


Classic.


----------



## thefam

jld said:


> My default thinking is that the man can handle it.
> 
> But if I should have learned anything on TAM, it is that *my* default thinking is often wrong.


But could the children handle it. I don't think one spouse resenting another can be hidden from the children. Resentment over time could lead to contempt. These are just my thoughts; you have much more real life experience and I respect that.


----------



## MarriedDude

jb02157 said:


> This happens to divorced men all the time, they are forced to live in poverty while their X spends his money on foolish things. Like it was said before, divorced people should be able to take care of themselves, if they can't they should be allowed to to do it.


I agree with you on this point. 

This does happen to women just as the opposite situation occurs. 

It is sad -that people so easily forget everything good that has come out of a relationship...i.e., children. Because of this good, one would think that adults could treat each other with kindness and respect. The basic kindness and respect one would treat a total stranger on a train or plane. However, we are emotional beings -driven as we are by thoughts and feelings. The end result sometimes being animosity, contempt, disregard.

This is saddest part of the whole deal.


----------



## jld

thefam said:


> But could the children handle it. I don't think one spouse resenting another can be hidden from the children. Resentment over time could lead to contempt. These are just my thoughts; you have much more real life experience and I respect that.


That is a question. I have certainly become angry with my children. I do not think any of them would say my frustration means I should have put them in daycare and school. They really like the lives they are living now and have lived with me. They enjoy the homeschooling.

The kids know our faults. They know that I am a fearful person and that Dug is a lax disciplinarian. He is not bothered by much and lets most things go. But he gets to a point where he gets mad, too, and then somebody gets yelled at. If there would be some structure before that, it might not happen.

I don't think the kids, especially the older ones, expect perfection. They know what it is like to deal with little kids. It can drive some of us crazy.

I remember one time dd and I were away for four days at a homeschooling conference. Ds told me that it was fun with Dug, going out to eat every day and watching TV. 

But by about the third day, the mess in the house was building up. Dug started yelling at the kids, and one of the younger ones got spanked, I think. Dug told me later that he would spend two hours cleaning up, and in just a short time it would be messy again. I could relate.

I bring things like organization and communication to our family. Dug is a very nice person, but organization and communication are not his strengths. And I am not at all technical, so he fills in there.

Maybe the important thing is to realize neither the marriage nor the family life will be perfect. You just keep trying, keep trying to make it better. And try to learn from the mistakes.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Classic.


And this is why I have a hard time respecting you, Sam, and most of the other men here who think like this. Dug says you guys don't want to do the work. You want the woman to do it, to make life easy for you.

I understand that men feel they should be treated with respect. But earning it is a surer way to get it than just complaining that you are entitled to it but are not receiving it. Well, if you want to be a leader, anyway.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> And this is why I have a hard time respecting you, Sam, and most of the other men here who think like this. Dug says you guys don't want to do the work. You want the woman to do it, to make life easy for you.
> 
> I understand that men feel they should be treated with respect. But earning it is a surer way to get it than just complaining that you are entitled to it but are not receiving it. Well, if you want to be a leader, anyway.


And it is absolutely yours and dugs prerogative to feel and think that way.

As I have said before, you two are very well suited for each other, but would be very poorly suited for many other people. That does not make anyone better or superior. Just different.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> And this is why I have a hard time respecting you, Sam, and most of the other men here who think like this. Dug says you guys don't want to do the work. You want the woman to do it, to make life easy for you.
> 
> I understand that men feel they should be treated with respect. But earning it is a surer way to get it than just complaining that you are entitled to it but are not receiving it. Well, if you want to be a leader, anyway.


I think the disconnect is on both sides. Those of us you have a difficult time respecting, reciprocate that feeling. It's in the contempt that seems to flow from you when you describe people who don't want to live your lifestyle. There is always the implication that they are inferior to you. And many find that position difficult to respect.

Many men (and women) want someone they can walk alongside in life, and not someone they have to carry. We don't want a woman to do the work for us, we want her to put in somewhere close to what we do and for her to live up to some basic virtues. Because it's desirable to us.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> And it is absolutely yours and dugs prerogative to feel and think that way.
> 
> As I have said before, you two are very well suited for each other, but would be very poorly suited for many other people. That does not make anyone better or superior. Just different.


That seems like a non-answer to me.

There are surely better husbands/fathers/men in general out there than Dug. He disappoints me in many ways. He is not some perfect male.

And I think there are many women right here on TAM that are much better wives and mothers than I am or probably ever could be. I often feel like I fell into the job and have just tried to do the best I could, given my own personality and conditioning.

Not sure why it is a big deal to say some people are better or worse at something than we are.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I think the disconnect is on both sides. Those of us you have a difficult time respecting, reciprocate that feeling. It's in the contempt that seems to flow from you when you describe people who don't want to live your lifestyle. There is always the implication that they are inferior to you. And many find that position difficult to respect.
> 
> Many men (and women) want someone they can walk alongside in life, and not someone they have to carry. We don't want a woman to do the work for us, we want her to put in somewhere close to what we do and for her to live up to some basic virtues. Because it's desirable to us.


I understand that you feel contempt, or perhaps disgust, or revulsion, and certainly impatience, from me. It is not that I consciously try to communicate that. It is likely the natural reaction to my not respecting you, or at least your positions, as I understand them, anyway.

Thing is, when I *try* to respect people, instead of genuinely feeling it, that comes out weird, too. I am too transparent a person naturally to be able to fake anything very well. And my conscience cannot sustain it for long. 

You want an equal relationship. I want a leader. Even my own husband does not meet all of my leadership qualifications. But I made my bed years ago, and I have to lie in it. Because the floor is the only alternative.


----------



## header

jld said:


> But I made my bed years ago, and I have to lie in it. Because the floor is the only alternative.


You don't have a couch in your house?


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> That seems like a non-answer to me.
> 
> There are surely better husbands/fathers/men in general out there than Dug. He disappoints me in many ways. He is not some perfect male.
> 
> And I think there are many women right here on TAM that are much better wives and mothers than I am or probably ever could be. I often feel like I fell into the job and have just tried to do the best I could, given my own personality and conditioning.
> 
> Not sure why it is a big deal to say some people are better or worse at something than we are.


It seems like a non answer because you are seeking a black and white, yes and no, good and bad, right or wrong answer, and there simply isn't one that can apply to anyone but the person asking the question.

There are surely some men out there that would be a better husband for you than dug is, just as there are certainly women out there that would be a better wife for dug than you are. There are also men and women out there that would be much worse partners for you two.

You would be an absolutely terrible choice for me as a wife, just as I would be a terrible choice for you, but better and worse is all relative. When dealing with relationships, it takes both people, and both people create the dynamic. The trick is finding the partner that when the two people are combined, the best dynamic for both is created.

Both are responsible for the relationship, and how that responsibility manifests itself is up to the people in the relationship, but since there are two people in it, it is inescapable that both are responsible.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> I think the disconnect is on both sides. Those of us you have a difficult time respecting, reciprocate that feeling. It's in the contempt that seems to flow from you when you describe people who don't want to live your lifestyle. There is always the implication that they are inferior to you. And many find that position difficult to respect.
> 
> Many men (and women) want someone they can walk alongside in life, and not someone they have to carry. We don't want a woman to do the work for us, we want her to put in somewhere close to what we do and for her to live up to some basic virtues. Because it's desirable to us.


That seems kind of condescending. It appears to presume that women, as a default, perform less of the basics required for a human to exist. 

For perspective...I was raised by men -a single father, hunt camps all over the world, construction sites, casinos.. -my mother was and is a despicable entitlement princess -that literally traded custody of me for money. For many years that drove me crazy and I HATED women -thinking them all the same -which, given my personality -drove me to study that thing that I so despised. 

Copious reading and observation brought me to a more uncomfortable conclusion (at least for the hate i wanted to foster): People will be good or not, kind or not, loving or not...based not upon the sex they were born with or the gender they emulate...but by the actions that they as individuals choose to take...everyday. 

We can take our personal experiences and apply them, in a blanket way -to the world around us...assigning attributes that are unique to the individual to everyone..or we can choose to take those experiences and use them as catalyst to better understand both ourselves and the others we share this world with. 

While we may not agree nor appreciate all we encounter -it is better to take the default standpoint that they are all doing their best.


----------



## Acoa

I'm a fan of rehabilitative alimony only. Many facts have to be considered, such as value and split up of assets, current earnings and future earning potential. In the case of long term marriage where one party worked and the other had the job of running the home and raising the family, but has not other skill set to fall back on to earn an income, permanent alimony should be a possibility. 

I was married for 23 years, we were mid 40's at the time of the D. She was a SAHM most of the marriage, however I paid to put her through school to earn her Master's degree and she had her teaching certifications but was only working part time / temporary positions. Basically, she had earning potential, but wasn't using it because she didn't need to. So, even if by law she could have gotten permanent alimony, how does that benefit anyone but her? It also wouldn't provide any motivation for her to seek a full time job. She would have essentially become an additional dependent in my life. 

Luckily in our case we were able to agree on me giving her a healthy portion of the marital assets (80%) and half of my 401k, in exchange we limited alimony to rehabilitative for a max of 3 years. The fact she had assets to lose, and a deadline to get a job that utilized her education was good motivation. She got a full time job after 18 months and alimony terminated. 

I think in our case, permanent alimony would have been a disincentive for her to become self supporting. Although I can see in many cases this might be true. The courts would typically favor permanent as I think they court could care less about he payer's obligation and would want to ensure the receiver never became destitute and dependent on the state.


----------



## naiveonedave

samyeagar said:


> It seems like a non answer because you are seeking a black and white, yes and no, good and bad, right or wrong answer, and there simply isn't one that can apply to anyone but the person asking the question.
> 
> There are surely some men out there that would be a better husband for you than dug is, just as there are certainly women out there that would be a better wife for dug than you are. There are also men and women out there that would be much worse partners for you two.
> 
> You would be an absolutely terrible choice for me as a wife, just as I would be a terrible choice for you, but better and worse is all relative. When dealing with relationships, it takes both people, and both people create the dynamic. The trick is finding the partner that when the two people are combined, *the best dynamic for both is created.
> *
> Both are responsible for the relationship, and how that responsibility manifests itself is up to the people in the relationship, but since there are two people in it, it is inescapable that both are responsible.


good post. However, I would change the bolded to "a much better dynamic for both is created". Best implies that you found your 'soul mate', which is not really practical.


----------



## jld

header said:


> You don't have a couch in your house?


Smart Aleck.


----------



## header

Acoa said:


> I think in our case, permanent alimony would have been a disincentive for her to become self supporting. Although I can see in many cases this might be true. The courts would typically favor permanent as I think they court could care less about he payer's obligation and would want to ensure the receiver never became destitute and dependent on the state.


That's one of my concerns, I started a thread on exactly that topic just now.

Shameless plug for my thread about an ex spouse petitioning for more spousal support after the initial support order expires:

http://talkaboutmarriage.com/life-a...pport-payers-worry-theyll-come-back-more.html


----------



## Pluto2

I am admitting to not reading every post in this thread, so if this has been addressed-my apologies.

Here on TAM, there are a couple of women who are facing divorce after a 30+ marriage, and most (although I believe not every single one of them) did not work outside the home by mutual agreement.

So those of you on this thread who adamantly oppose alimony, do they receive nothing. Their prospects for independently supporting themselves is pretty nil. What do you propose?


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> It seems like a non answer because you are seeking a black and white, yes and no, good and bad, right or wrong answer, and there simply isn't one that can apply to anyone but the person asking the question.
> 
> There are surely some men out there that would be a better husband for you than dug is, just as there are certainly women out there that would be a better wife for dug than you are. There are also men and women out there that would be much worse partners for you two.
> 
> You would be an absolutely terrible choice for me as a wife, just as I would be a terrible choice for you, but better and worse is all relative. When dealing with relationships, it takes both people, and both people create the dynamic. The trick is finding the partner that when the two people are combined, the best dynamic for both is created.
> 
> Both are responsible for the relationship, and how that responsibility manifests itself is up to the people in the relationship, but since there are two people in it, it is inescapable that both are responsible.


I don't know that the responsibility is equal. We all have different capabilities.

We could not be married for many reasons, Sam. But one of the foremost, imo, is because both of us need to feel cared for. We need affirmation. And two people in a marriage needing that seems risky to me.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I understand that you feel contempt, or perhaps disgust, or revulsion, and certainly impatience, from me. It is not that I consciously try to communicate that. It is likely the natural reaction to my not respecting you, or at least your positions, as I understand them, anyway.
> 
> Thing is, when I *try* to respect people, instead of genuinely feeling it, that comes out weird, too. I am too transparent a person naturally to be able to fake anything very well. And my conscience cannot sustain it for long.
> 
> You want an equal relationship. I want a leader. Even my own husband does not meet all of my leadership qualifications. But I made my bed years ago, and I have to lie in it. Because the floor is the only alternative.


I try not to take it personal. I'm getting more used to your writing style. But the initial reading can sometime make me feel a little revulsion lol.

I'm not looking for 50/50, but something close. I don't expect things to be equal, what I expect is that both parties put in 100% effort. One person's 100% isn't the same as the next, because we're not all equal in reality (as opposed to equal before the law). What I'm anticipating is closer to maybe 55-45 or as much as 60-40, with me putting in the 55 or 60. What it will be is an exchange that I and whomever I marry both view as a fair trade.

I--and I think most guys are like this--am not interested in carrying someone, and they shouldn't be interested in carrying me. That doesn't mean that either of us won't need support as we go through life--contrary, I expect we shall--but if I need support, I expect my wife will be there for me, and likewise, I expect I will be there when she needs it. 

Some days it may be 50/50. Some days Maybe I'll be pulling 100%. And others maybe she'll have to roll up her sleeves and pull the weight because I can't. Most days it'll not be either, and be somewhere in between those.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I try not to take it personal. I'm getting more used to your writing style. But the initial reading can sometime make me feel a little revulsion lol.
> 
> I'm not looking for 50/50, but something close. I don't expect things to be equal, what I expect is that both parties put in 100% effort. One person's 100% isn't the same as the next, because we're not all equal in reality (as opposed to equal before the law). What I'm anticipating is closer to maybe 55-45 or as much as 60-40, with me putting in the 55 or 60. What it will be is an exchange that I and whomever I marry both view as a fair trade.
> 
> I--and I think most guys are like this--am not interested in carrying someone, and they shouldn't be interested in carrying me. That doesn't mean that either of us won't need support as we go through life--contrary, I expect we shall--but if I need support, I expect my wife will be there for me, and likewise, I expect I will be there when she needs it.
> 
> Some days it may be 50/50. Some days Maybe I'll be pulling 100%. And others maybe she'll have to roll up her sleeves and pull the weight because I can't. Most days it'll not be either, and be somewhere in between those.


Ime, reality can be a lot different than what we imagine. I had no idea how vulnerable becoming a mother would make me, for example. And I am really glad my husband does not take advantage of that.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> I don't know that the responsibility is equal. We all have different capabilities.
> 
> We could not be married for many reasons, Sam. But one of the foremost, imo, is because both of us need to feel cared for. We need affirmation. *And two people in a marriage needing that seems risky to me*.


And you are extremely risk averse, so anything perceived as risky, or scary would be detrimental to a relationship with you. What seems risky and scary to you is not the same as what would be risky or scary to another woman. That does not make you inferior or superior, just different.

"Equal" does not mean "same"

The relationship is bigger than the individual, and each relationship has different needs in order to succeed based upon the people involved. The relationships success is dependent upon how well each person does at fulfilling those needs. Even in your relationship, you provide for the relationship what dug needs to stay in it and remain satisfied with it. Likewise, he provides the relationship with what you need to stay in it.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> And you are extremely risk averse, so anything perceived as risky, or scary would be detrimental to a relationship with you. What seems risky and scary to you is not the same as what would be risky or scary to another woman. That does not make you inferior or superior, just different. I don't know. I think it could be considered inferior. It is more work for the other person.
> 
> "Equal" does not mean "same" I think that has yet to be realized in this discussion. Not that equality is necessarily the objective for some of us. Meeting needs in as satisfying a way as possible for all sides might be a better goal.
> 
> The relationship is bigger than the individual, and each relationship has different needs in order to succeed based upon the people involved. The relationships success is dependent upon how well each person does at fulfilling those needs. Even in your relationship, you provide for the relationship what dug needs to stay in it and remain satisfied with it. That's what he tells me.Likewise, he provides the relationship with what you need to stay in it. That wording is accurate.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## header

Zanne said:


> There are a lot of women, including myself, who have a need to be taken care of though


You should put that in your dating profile and/or make it known on your first date. It's only fair.


----------



## jld

Zanne said:


> There are a lot of women, including myself, who have a need to be taken care of though. I understand that's not the reality for most men today and in our current society.


Sadly.


----------



## jld

header said:


> You should put that in your dating profile and/or make it known on your first date. It's only fair.


I think it is something you realize along the way. You don't necessarily know it at first.

And honestly, I would think any man with some life experience would have at least an idea this might be a possibility.


----------



## anonmd

The problem is physiology, menopause should come first >.

If in the first 10 or 15 years of marriage the women was incapable of procreation, she was hormonally *****y all the time, her boobs slowly drooped towards the floor and her vagina dried up THEN it all went away, she became fertile, loving and horny we'd have a basis for alimony after 20+ years :grin2:

Fire away LOL:smile2:


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## MarriedDude

jld said:


> I think it is something you realize along the way. You don't necessarily know it at first.
> 
> And honestly, I would think any man with some life experience would have at least an idea this might be a possibility.


By careful study of potential partners (as with people in general) -they tend to tell you everything about themselves fairly quickly

not including the chameleons around us.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## EllisRedding

My wife is currently a SAHM, but before that she had a career, and one that if need be she could get back in to, make good money. In the extremely highly unlikely event we got divorced, there is no way she should be entitled to a free ride from me for the rest of her life. I would have no issues paying alimony as I highly respect what she has done for our family staying at home, but there has to be some sort of cutoff. What that cutoff is, I don't quite know. Is it some sort of formula based on years of marriage, it is based on years of marriage but only the years as a SAHM, division of assets, remarriage, etc...? 

My other issue with alimony, IMO, if the spouse cheats (which should make the marriage contract null and void) they forfeit all rights to any sort of alimony. I understand this gets into murky waters b/c that then opens up the marriage to interpretation of what other actions may have nullified the marriage contract (physical/emotional abuse, etc...).


----------



## samyeagar

Zanne said:


> Well, I started dating my STBXH at 16 and we married five years later when I was pregnant with our first son. We were both completely clueless about marriage and what we wanted.
> 
> My current boyfriend knows my past and he knows how I feel. His STBXW was also a SAHM and he values that contribution. But things are different now. For one, we don't have children at home. Second, in this day and age, I don't think we can afford to have me at home. That's the practicality of it. He would like me to at least have a part time job and I agree it's the right thing to do because it will take a burden off of him to support me financially. This wouldn't be an issue years ago, but it is so darn expensive to even exist now days!! The health insurance is ridiculous! But that's another issue.
> 
> It does remind me, however, that his STBXW is asking in her settlement for health insurance coverage to continue and *life insurance *on him, which he dropped a few years ago. As I understand it, this is a reasonable request, but again, so expensive!!


Speaking of life insurance...that is probably the part of my settlement I feel most uneasy about. I am required to maintain a life insurance policy on myself, with my ex wife as the primary beneficiary until our youngest is 18. My death has a time sensitive incentive for my ex wife...


----------



## MarriedDude

samyeagar said:


> Speaking of life insurance...that is probably the part of my settlement I feel most uneasy about. I am required to maintain a life insurance policy on myself, with my ex wife as the primary beneficiary until our youngest is 18. My death has a time sensitive incentive for my ex wife...


Depending on the point of view -could be interpreted as prudent and in the interest of the child. 

HOWEVER...i would interpret it as spooky and somewhat worrisome. 

Maybe the beneficiary should be the child -or another family member...or better a trust with a separate administrator -not beholden to the EW for anything


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## header

samyeagar said:


> My death has a time sensitive incentive for my ex wife...


Nice knowing ya!


----------



## MarriedDude

Zanne said:


> It happens more than you may think. Based on my research, it's a reasonable request in divorce settlements.


Yes...."_reasonable_"


----------



## samyeagar

MarriedDude said:


> Depending on the point of view -could be interpreted as prudent and in the interest of the child.
> 
> HOWEVER...i would interpret it as spooky and somewhat worrisome.
> 
> Maybe the beneficiary should be the child -or another family member...or better a trust with a separate administrator -not beholden to the EW for anything


The rationale is exactly that...best interest of the child.

Having the child as the beneficiary still leaves her as a defacto direct beneficiary, as would any of her family members. She maintained that she needed direct access so the kids could be provided for without any potential legal wrangling and delays, which was why my family was out, as was a trust. The judge sided with her.


----------



## naiveonedave

samyeagar said:


> The rationale is exactly that...best interest of the child.
> 
> Having the child as the beneficiary still leaves her as a defacto direct beneficiary, as would any of her family members. She maintained that she needed direct access so the kids could be provided for without any potential legal wrangling and delays, which was why my family was out, as was a trust. The judge sided with her.


One more, of many, things wrong with D. It is practically and invitation for an exS to commit murder.


----------



## MarriedDude

samyeagar said:


> The rationale is exactly that...best interest of the child.
> 
> Having the child as the beneficiary still leaves her as a defacto direct beneficiary, as would any of her family members. She maintained that she needed direct access so the kids could be provided for without any potential legal wrangling and delays, which was why my family was out, as was a trust. The judge sided with her.


That is ***** up

There have been several attempts to break wills and break Trusts in my family. None have been successful -all have been started by former spouses. All were costly


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> One more, of many, things wrong with D. It is practically and invitation for an exS to commit murder.


She is not going to do that. She does not want to go to prison.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## header

naiveonedave said:


> One more, of many, things wrong with D. It is practically and invitation for an exS to commit murder.


They would be a prime suspect.


----------



## samyeagar

naiveonedave said:


> One more, of many, things wrong with D. It is practically and invitation for an exS to commit murder.


One thing I did do...the wording is very exact...primary beneficiary...not sole beneficiary.

My current policy allows me to specify three beneficiaries. My ex wife is named primary at 34%, my wife is 33% and my mother is 33%. My ex wife is not aware of this, so there will indeed be legal wrangling in the event of my death.

ETA. My wife and mother will absolutely see to it that my kids are provided for outside of my ex wife.


----------



## samyeagar

header said:


> They would be a prime suspect.


You need to remember...my ex wife is diagnosed with Narcissistic Personality Disorder. The thought of getting caught would not enter her mind.

I do agree with jld that it is extremely unlikely that anything would happen to me like this, but it is a chilling realization that the courts made me more valuable dead than alive to my ex wife.


----------



## MarriedDude

samyeagar said:


> One thing I did do...the wording is very exact...primary beneficiary...not sole beneficiary.
> 
> My current policy allows me to specify three beneficiaries. My ex wife is named primary at 34%, my wife is 33% and my mother is 33%. My ex wife is not aware of this, so there will indeed be legal wrangling in the event of my death.
> 
> ETA. My wife and mother will absolutely see to it that my kids are provided for outside of my ex wife.


You would want to check your policy to be sure -but it's highly probable you could get the surety to defend your listing of beneficiaries against claims of your ExW...that would mean she would spend out of pocket against a behemoth insurance company that would spend her into oblivion. 

The way most suits are won...and lost


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Kivlor said:


> *I'm not looking for 50/50, but something close. I don't expect things to be equal, what I expect is that both parties put in 100% effort. One person's 100% isn't the same as the next, because we're not all equal in reality (as opposed to equal before the law). What I'm anticipating is closer to maybe 55-45 or as much as 60-40, with me putting in the 55 or 60. What it will be is an exchange that I and whomever I marry both view as a fair trade.*
> 
> *I--and I think most guys are like this--am not interested in carrying someone, and they shouldn't be interested in carrying me. That doesn't mean that either of us won't need support as we go through life--contrary, I expect we shall--but if I need support, I expect my wife will be there for me, and likewise, I expect I will be there when she needs it. *
> 
> *Some days it may be 50/50. Some days Maybe I'll be pulling 100%. And others maybe she'll have to roll up her sleeves and pull the weight because I can't. Most days it'll not be either, and be somewhere in between those.*


I very much THINK like you do on this Kivlor.... it's called "Interdependence"..... a word I learned on this forum a long time ago by a poster named AFEH ... 

Interdependence is being mutually dependent, or simply being dependent on each other .* Two people in a healthy relationship are said to be interdependent.* In contrast to existing alone, it is a voluntary recognition that “no man is an island,” and that we must co-inhabit the space in which we live ...

Neither is seen or felt as being a burden... we hold our own...which strengthens our union & also gives us appreciation for each others roles.. though our roles within the relationship may be very different.. yet both are of value.. we very much appreciate all the other brings to our lives.. this enhances our experience.

Here is a write up on this.. 

Interdependence Day(s) - How To Create a Balanced Relationship 



> We all relate to one another in different ways. Some people are very *independent* in relationships, others are *dependent*, and a number of people are *co-dependent* (which means they put aside their own well-being to maintain a relationship with another).
> 
> The healthiest way we can interact with those close to us is by being truly* interdependent*. This is where two people, both strong individuals, are involved with each other, but without sacrificing themselves or compromising their values. What they have is a balanced relationship, and unfortunately it is not all that common. But it is attainable with just a little awareness and understanding.
> 
> First you need to assess where you are right now. If there is too much neediness (which can be a turn-off) or you feel that your partner is way too independent and doesn't want to be with you, rebalancing how you relate is very important. Without it, both of you will always feel out of sync, and that isn't a great formula for a harmonious adult connection....


----------



## samyeagar

MarriedDude said:


> You would want to check your policy to be sure -but it's highly probable you could get the surety to defend your listing of beneficiaries against claims of your ExW...that would mean she would spend out of pocket against a behemoth insurance company that would spend her into oblivion.
> 
> The way most suits are won...and lost


That was part of my thought process.


----------



## Acoa

Zanne said:


> Did she agree to your settlement because she thought she wouldn't get permanent alimony?



No, under state law it would have been at least 23 years (length of the marriage). Possibly permanent if she could prove she couldn't work. 

However I had a good argument that she had the skills, just not the desire, so it would have been a lengthy court battle and the lawyers would have gotten our assets rather than them being transferred to her. In the end 3 years plus assets was more attractive than 23 years without assets and the remote possibility at permanent wasn't realistic. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## lifeistooshort

EllisRedding said:


> My wife is currently a SAHM, but before that she had a career, and one that if need be she could get back in to, make good money. In the extremely highly unlikely event we got divorced, there is no way she should be entitled to a free ride from me for the rest of her life. I would have no issues paying alimony as I highly respect what she has done for our family staying at home, but there has to be some sort of cutoff. What that cutoff is, I don't quite know. Is it some sort of formula based on years of marriage, it is based on years of marriage but only the years as a SAHM, division of assets, remarriage, etc...?
> 
> My other issue with alimony, IMO, if the spouse cheats (which should make the marriage contract null and void) they forfeit all rights to any sort of alimony. I understand this gets into murky waters b/c that then opens up the marriage to interpretation of what other actions may have nullified the marriage contract (physical/emotional abuse, etc...).


Not only will that open up all kinds of accusations and abuses but if you want to punish cheating this way it's unfair. If the working spouse cheats will they pay double? 

What if both work? How do you punish those cheaters? 

Will a dad who stayed at home for 20 years and hauls off and smacks his wife forfeit alimony and get tossed on the street? Does that act nullify the contributions he's made? 

Or is it that stay at homes are of inherently lesser value and should thus be punished more harshly for the same transgression? 

Stay at home's should think carefully about what this implies about their contributions if they are to be punished more harshly then anyone else.

I think proponents of this are thinking emotionally and don't fully grasp the box they'd open.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> She is not going to do that. She does not want to go to prison.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I disagree, she may want to do so, even with the risk of going to prison. You have to remember that sometimes exes are not nearly as sane as the random person on the street.


----------



## jld

naiveonedave said:


> I disagree, she may want to do so, even with the risk of going to prison. You have to remember that sometimes exes are not nearly as sane as the random person on the street.


Regardless of what she may want to do, I do not think she will ever do it.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## EllisRedding

lifeistooshort said:


> Not only will that open up all kinds of accusations and abuses but if you want to punish cheating this way it's unfair. If the working spouse cheats will they pay double?
> 
> What if both work? How do you punish those cheaters?
> 
> Will a dad who stayed at home for 20 years and hauls off and smacks his wife forfeit alimony and get tossed on the street? Does that act nullify the contributions he's made?
> 
> Or is it that stay at homes are of inherently lesser value and should thus be punished more harshly for the same transgression?
> 
> Stay at home's should think carefully about what this implies about their contributions if they are to be punished more harshly then anyone else.
> 
> I think proponents of this are thinking emotionally and don't fully grasp the box they'd open.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Oh I know that, which is why I clearly stated this gets into murky waters  Also, I wasn't talking specifically about SAHP in that instance, two separate points I was making.


----------



## naiveonedave

jld said:


> Regardless of what she may want to do, I do not think she will ever do it.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


you must never read the papers, spouses and ex spouses kill each other all the time. There is a reason that when a married person is murdered, the spouse is the A1 suspect.


----------



## naiveonedave

lifeistooshort said:


> Not only will that open up all kinds of accusations and abuses but if you want to punish cheating this way it's unfair. If the working spouse cheats will they pay double?
> 
> What if both work? How do you punish those cheaters?
> 
> Will a dad who stayed at home for 20 years and hauls off and smacks his wife forfeit alimony and get tossed on the street? Does that act nullify the contributions he's made?
> 
> Or is it that stay at homes are of inherently lesser value and should thus be punished more harshly for the same transgression?
> 
> Stay at home's should think carefully about what this implies about their contributions if they are to be punished more harshly then anyone else.
> 
> I think proponents of this are thinking emotionally and don't fully grasp the box they'd open.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I agree w/you, however, you have to acknowledge that the current system is insanely unfair in application some of the time.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> Regardless of what she may want to do, *I do not think she will ever do it.*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Other than the fact that is it rare in the broader population, what about my specific situation leads you to this conclusion?


----------



## lifeistooshort

naiveonedave said:


> I agree w/you, however, you have to acknowledge that the current system is insanely unfair in application some of the time.


Of course it is. I'm not a big proponent of alimony and I didn't ask for it in my divorce, and I see no reason an able bodied person can't assume some of their own support. 

Within the confines of what's reasonable to ask. 

But men being ordered to pay 70% of their income so ex doesn't have to work? 

Ridiculous. 

People ordered to support a spouse who simply didn't want to work? 

Ridiculous. 

States do this because such people will likely go public assistance and they're trying to push some of the cost on the one who can pay. IMHO.

The government takes from haves and gives to have nots all the time. 

But if you enjoyed 20 years of your wife taking care of kids snd home so you didn't have to? Then accumulated assets are split and she needs some support. But I think if one spouse is going to be asked to work the other can work too.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## anonmd

Sounds like the difference in cases is one wife listened to the realities of how much the lawyers would get and one didn't care. 80% of assets and 50% of retirement is still pretty brutal.


----------



## samyeagar

Zanne said:


> Ah, good to know. Thanks for answering.
> 
> *I wonder at the differences in these cases? * @samyeagar got screwed over!


His ex was more reasonable and rational than mine.

You have to remember...my ex had never had to support herself at all in her entire life. She had never lived in the real world.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Other than the fact that is it rare in the broader population, what about my specific situation leads you to this conclusion?


You have said it yourself. I think you would know if she were truly psychopathic.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## anonmd

Regardless of what the eventual settlement winds up at, all it takes is one to be combative. The lawyers wrack up time at $300+ an hour as long as one continues the fight. AND, in the case of 1 working spouse and a non working spouse the courts will order the working spouse to pay BOTH lawyers.


----------



## Acoa

anonmd said:


> Regardless of what the eventual settlement winds up at, all it takes is one to be combative. The lawyers wrack up time at $300+ an hour as long as one continues the fight. AND, in the case of 1 working spouse and a non working spouse the courts will order the working spouse to pay BOTH lawyers.



Yep, and I already paid for my ex to get a masters degree and teachers credentials. On paper she has more earnings potential than I do. 

I opted to give her most of the assets as a trade off to avoid a long court battle and the associated legal fees. We settled in 6 months with one visit to court and less than $6k in total legal costs. 

The D was quick and she was off my payroll quickly. Worth every penny. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## sumij

While I don't believe in long-term alimony, I believe under some circumstances it's warranted. With a SAHM, giving up her career to raise a family, she's put into a disadvantage, career-wise. It can take years to return to the same wage capacity, especially in an older adult.

In the case of abusive marriages, the emotional damage done to the woman (yes, it happens with both genders, but the majority being female victims), can take years to undo. In these instances, I'd say alimony would be appropriate for a long period of time - until they were able to heal emotionally and learned a new skill. I've worked with women in these situations and the damage goes very deeply. Not something to be taken lightly.

But in the general circumstance, I think alimony should either be short-term or non-existent.


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> That seems kind of condescending. It appears to presume that women, as a default, perform less of the basics required for a human to exist.
> 
> For perspective...I was raised by men -a single father, hunt camps all over the world, construction sites, casinos.. -my mother was and is a despicable entitlement princess -that literally traded custody of me for money. For many years that drove me crazy and I HATED women -thinking them all the same -which, given my personality -drove me to study that thing that I so despised.
> 
> Copious reading and observation brought me to a more uncomfortable conclusion (at least for the hate i wanted to foster): People will be good or not, kind or not, loving or not...based not upon the sex they were born with or the gender they emulate...but by the actions that they as individuals choose to take...everyday.
> 
> We can take our personal experiences and apply them, in a blanket way -to the world around us...assigning attributes that are unique to the individual to everyone..or we can choose to take those experiences and use them as catalyst to better understand both ourselves and the others we share this world with.
> 
> While we may not agree nor appreciate all we encounter -it is better to take the default standpoint that they are all doing their best.


I see how it might appear condescending. It isn't intended that way. I tried to more thoughtfully explain my point in the followup response to JLD.

My argument isn't aimed at women, I was merely using the same genders that JLD used, for context. It would be my assumption that most women don't want a man who they have to carry (or drag) through life. They want someone who will walk through it next to them, and maybe toss his coat on that puddle if it can't be gone around.

Exceptions apply, but they are what we would refer to as "deviants". 



Zanne said:


> There are a lot of women, including myself, who have a need to be taken care of though. I understand that's not the reality for most men today and in our current society.


I think there is a tremendous difference between being a SAHM and needing to be taken care of. I think a lot of guys wouldn't have any issue with having a SAHW, assuming a few things. Comfort is the main one that comes to mind. He has to be comfortable with you enough to believe you won't leave and take him to the cleaners. Equally, I would think most women who are interested in being a SAHW would need to feel comfortable that their H won't just run off with some hussy and abandon them. 

Personally, I'm not opposed to having a SAHW. I think it's probably preferable if it can be afforded and if you trust each other deeply. As I stated further up-thread, I think it is quite apparent that a couple's choice to have a SAHP is a mutual decision. It isn't unilateral. And *both* are giving up something to invest in the partnership together. I have a high amount of respect for SAHPs and I think they've contributed equally (or close enough, see above post) to their *marriage* as any working parent, which is why I think everything should be split down the middle in D, and am opposed to alimony. I respect both parents contributions, and place neither above the other.


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> And here is a prime example of why I said alimony is not punitive.
> 
> You left your wife for another woman. I'm not going to argue whether you actually had an affair.... I've no doubt your current wife is a better match for you.


Thanks.



lifeistooshort said:


> But it remains that if alimony is a tool to punish the case might have been made that you did in fact owe your ex wife.
> 
> You may have argued it but you may not have won if the intent was to punish.
> 
> Fortunately alinomy is not a tool to punish. Imagine the can that would open.


Did I say alimony was intended for punishment? If so, let me retract that; I don't think it is. Of course it may *feel *like punishment to the payer, but that is a different issue.


----------



## lifeistooshort

technovelist said:


> Thanks.
> 
> 
> 
> Did I say alimony was intended for punishment? If so, let me retract that; I don't think it is. Of course it may *feel *like punishment to the payer, but that is a different issue.


No, you didn't. I had been making the point to a few people who felt it should be forfeited when cheating is involved. I was pointing out that it wasn't a tool to punish; it's purely practical and your ex wife had no basis to demand anything from you.

Didn't mean to imply that you said it.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> I try not to take it personal. I'm getting more used to your writing style. But the initial reading can sometime make me feel a little revulsion lol.
> 
> I'm not looking for 50/50, but something close. I don't expect things to be equal, what I expect is that both parties put in 100% effort. One person's 100% isn't the same as the next, because we're not all equal in reality (as opposed to equal before the law). What I'm anticipating is closer to maybe 55-45 or as much as 60-40, with me putting in the 55 or 60. What it will be is an exchange that I and whomever I marry both view as a fair trade.
> 
> I--and I think most guys are like this--am not interested in carrying someone, and they shouldn't be interested in carrying me. That doesn't mean that either of us won't need support as we go through life--contrary, I expect we shall--but if I need support, I expect my wife will be there for me, and likewise, I expect I will be there when she needs it.
> 
> Some days it may be 50/50. Some days Maybe I'll be pulling 100%. And others maybe she'll have to roll up her sleeves and pull the weight because I can't. Most days it'll not be either, and be somewhere in between those.


I am the primary breadwinner in my marriage, and have been for most of it. Fortunately my occupation has permitted me to make enough money so that my wife has not had to work for the past 15 years. I have no problem with supporting her and in fact enjoy it.

Now if she were *****y and nasty to me, I would feel differently about that, but we get along very well. Of course we have disagreements sometimes but very rarely anything that gets either of us upset, and never for very long.

And as far as mutual support, she tends to me if I am sick or the like, as I do for her. But as far as the finances, I earn and invest the money, successfully enough that at this point working is an option for me rather than a necessity.

Which is a good thing because we are only on this earth for a short time, and I want to spend as much time with my loving wife as I can while we are still both on the same side of the soil...


----------



## tech-novelist

lifeistooshort said:


> No, you didn't. I had been making the point to a few people who felt it should be forfeited when cheating is involved. I was pointing out that it wasn't a tool to punish; it's purely practical and your ex wife had no basis to demand anything from you.
> 
> Didn't mean to imply that you said it.


Ok, thanks. I didn't think that I had.


----------



## SnowToArmPits

I've never paid alimony, if I had to pay it I can't deny my opinion might be different, I might be against long term alimony.

Having said that, there are scenarios I can think of where I'd be in favour of the husband paying long term alimony. They'd be scenarios where there are young children involved and the husband earns considerably more money than the wife. 

e.g. Wife with two young children, husband cheats and divorces to be with his girlfriend, or divorces just to be single and to start dating again. I'd be in favour of long term alimony for the wife.

Even though I voted for long term alimony in the thread poll, there's cases where I'd be against it. A husband having to pay alimony after the marriage disolves when his wife cheats, that seems unfair. If there's young kids in this marriage, deciding alimony is going to be unfair to somebody.


----------



## Celes

I'm a woman and don't approve of alimony in any circumstance. If you aren't married, your aren't entitled to your ex's money, period. Even for SAHPs. If they choose to solely be dependent on their spouse, it's the risk they take. Same risk as in the case of if their spouse were to die suddenly.


----------



## tech-novelist

Celes said:


> I'm a woman and don't approve of alimony in any circumstance. If you aren't married, your aren't entitled to your ex's money, period. Even for SAHPs. If they choose to solely be dependent on their spouse, it's the risk they take. Same risk as in the case of if their spouse were to die suddenly.


I think this should be addressed in a premarital agreement, but of course it usually isn't.

But I agree in general that you shouldn't expect to be paid for a position you no longer hold.


----------



## jld

@SimplyAmorous

How does Mr SA feel about alimony?


----------



## lexis

lets face it, the alimony concept is a good one in some cases but not all, and there will always be people who bilk the system and use what is supposed to be good laws to their advantage.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

jld said:


> @SimplyAmorous
> 
> How does Mr SA feel about alimony?


I asked him the other night.. when I laid out my post.. his feelings were in it.. he is FOR IT ...most especially if the breadwinner man cheated, or wanted out... he would never feel it right to divorce & leave her destitute - after such a betrayal... when they agreed that a Traditional lifestyle benefited the family..

His thoughts are really the same as mine... my post here  *# 98* ... we both agree it can be pathetically ABUSED also.... I could abuse it and destroy his life.. (which I would never do)....

Imagine a good man like him.. what if he was a Doctor.. BIG MONEY.. a homemaking wife like me.. then I start getting it on with the hot gardner every day when he's at work.. 

Just imagine if he had to pay ME Alimony - while I got tons of money every month. while me & the Gardner was living together, living it up.. If I was my husband.. I'd want to kill us both !

That would be a travesty of justice... 

I realize that's emotional.. and the courts don't give a damn about who was the GOOD honorable spouse & who was the Betrayer , basically who Fcked the marriage up.. but I can't help but go there. that is just how I weigh things...

But still... due to cultural changes with women being EXPECTED to work AND the pathetic abuse of Alimony.. both of these combined is WHY it will soon be gone altogether.. yet another nail in the coffin for Traditional marriages..


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> I asked him the other night.. when I laid out my post.. his feelings were in it.. he is FOR IT ...most especially if the breadwinner man cheated, or wanted out... he would never feel it right to divorce & leave her destitute - after such a betrayal... when they agreed that a Traditional lifestyle benefited the family.


I thought he would be for it. He is a good man. I cannot see him acting in any but an honorable way toward the mother of his children, and toward his children.

You both look at the good of the family as a whole, not at what would selfishly benefit each individual at the expense of the other, or at the expense of the children. That willingness to look at the greater good is very important.


----------



## samyeagar

SimplyAmorous said:


> I asked him the other night.. when I laid out my post.. his feelings were in it.. he is FOR IT ...most especially if the breadwinner man cheated, or wanted out... he would never feel it right to divorce & leave her destitute - after such a betrayal... when they agreed that a Traditional lifestyle benefited the family..
> 
> His thoughts are really the same as mine... my post here  *# 98* ... we both agree it can be pathetically ABUSED also.... I could abuse it and destroy his life.. (which I would never do)....
> 
> *Imagine a good man like him.. what if he was a Doctor.. BIG MONEY.. a homemaking wife like me.. then I start getting it on with the hot gardner every day when he's at work..
> 
> Just imagine if he had to pay ME Alimony - while I got tons of money every month. while me & the Gardner was living together, living it up.. If I was my husband.. I'd want to kill us both !*
> 
> That would be a travesty of justice...
> 
> Now I realize the Courts don't want to involve ....
> 
> I realize that's emotional.. and the courts don't give a damn about who was the GOOD honorable spouse & who was the Betrayer , basically who Fcked the marriage up.. but I can't help but go there. that is just how I weigh things...
> 
> But still... due to cultural changes with women being EXPECTED to work AND the pathetic abuse of Alimony.. both of these combined is WHY it will soon be gone altogether.. yet another nail in the coffin for Traditional marriages..


You mean, sort of like my ex wife, except substitute gardener with kids teacher 

It does seem as if many people are OK with punitive alimony, and fortunately for them, many times, the awards reach punitive levels without the expressed intent of being punitive.

So what about lifetime alimony vs limited to say five years, especially when the lifetime alimony could exceed the length of the marriage?

When it comes to the SAHP, there seems to be an assumption that they took care of everything, worked really hard, but what if they just sucked at it? What if the working parent taking care of a lot of the household stuff too, where it wasn't a one parent works, the other takes care of the house, but rather one parent works, and the housework is split 50/50? Claiming the label SAHP doesn't mean a damned thing unless the job is done and done well.


----------



## EllisRedding

SimplyAmorous said:


> I asked him the other night.. when I laid out my post.. his feelings were in it.. he is FOR IT ...most especially if the breadwinner man cheated, or wanted out... he would never feel it right to divorce & leave her destitute - after such a betrayal... when they agreed that a Traditional lifestyle benefited the family..
> 
> His thoughts are really the same as mine... my post here  *# 98* ... we both agree it can be pathetically ABUSED also.... I could abuse it and destroy his life.. (which I would never do)....
> 
> Imagine a good man like him.. what if he was a Doctor.. BIG MONEY.. a homemaking wife like me.. then I start getting it on with the hot gardner every day when he's at work..
> 
> Just imagine if he had to pay ME Alimony - while I got tons of money every month. while me & the Gardner was living together, living it up.. If I was my husband.. I'd want to kill us both !
> 
> That would be a travesty of justice...
> 
> I realize that's emotional.. and the courts don't give a damn about who was the GOOD honorable spouse & who was the Betrayer , basically who Fcked the marriage up.. but I can't help but go there. that is just how I weigh things...
> 
> But still... due to cultural changes with women being EXPECTED to work AND the pathetic abuse of Alimony.. both of these combined is WHY it will soon be gone altogether.. yet another nail in the coffin for Traditional marriages..


Rock on SA, always good to see reference to cheating/wanting out as betrayal to the traditional lifestyle/family.

As far as the gardner, sounds like you already have someone picked out >


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> You mean, sort of like my ex wife, except substitute gardener with kids teacher
> 
> It does seem as if many people are OK with punitive alimony, and fortunately for them, many times, the awards reach punitive levels without the expressed intent of being punitive.
> 
> So what about lifetime alimony vs limited to say five years, especially when the lifetime alimony could exceed the length of the marriage?
> 
> When it comes to the SAHP, there seems to be an assumption that they took care of everything, worked really hard, but what if they just sucked at it? What if the working parent taking care of a lot of the household stuff too, where it wasn't a one parent works, the other takes care of the house, but rather one parent works, and the housework is split 50/50? Claiming the label SAHP doesn't mean a damned thing unless the job is done and done well.


Who decides what "done well" means?

The state does not want the taxpayer paying for people when the spouse can do it. The problem for some folks is that they really cannot afford to do it. Other people simply do not value what the sahp did. 

Bottom line, you need to know the heart of the person you marry. As norajane said, that takes time. And it likely has nothing to do with the outer beauty of the person, which seems to be what tripped you up the first time around, Sam.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Who decides what "done well" means?
> 
> *The state does not want the taxpayer paying for people when the spouse can do it. The problem for some folks is that they really cannot afford to do it. Other people simply do not value what the sahp did.*
> 
> Bottom line, you need to know the heart of the person you marry. As norajane said, that takes time. And it likely has nothing to do with the outer beauty of the person, which seems to be what tripped you up the first time around, Sam.


The problem with this idea is that the "spouse" is no longer a spouse after D. If your spouse has to take care of you, are you really divorced?


----------



## Kivlor

SimplyAmorous said:


> I asked him the other night.. when I laid out my post.. his feelings were in it.. he is FOR IT ...most especially if the breadwinner man cheated, or wanted out... he would never feel it right to divorce & leave her destitute - after such a betrayal... when they agreed that a Traditional lifestyle benefited the family..
> 
> His thoughts are really the same as mine... my post here  *# 98* ... we both agree it can be pathetically ABUSED also.... I could abuse it and destroy his life.. (which I would never do)....
> 
> Imagine a good man like him.. what if he was a Doctor.. BIG MONEY.. a homemaking wife like me.. then I start getting it on with the hot gardner every day when he's at work..
> 
> Just imagine if he had to pay ME Alimony - while I got tons of money every month. while me & the Gardner was living together, living it up.. If I was my husband.. I'd want to kill us both !
> 
> That would be a travesty of justice...
> 
> *I realize that's emotional.. and the courts don't give a damn about who was the GOOD honorable spouse & who was the Betrayer , basically who Fcked the marriage up.. but I can't help but go there. that is just how I weigh things...
> *
> But still... due to cultural changes with women being EXPECTED to work AND the pathetic abuse of Alimony.. both of these combined is WHY it will soon be gone altogether.. yet another nail in the coffin for Traditional marriages..


I don't think that's emotional at all. It's about Mens Rea. It's about justice. There's something to be said if someone violated their oaths before God and the courts; violated contractual obligation. There is a case to be made for this being absolutely just.

What's not just is claiming that the intent of the parties--and their actions leading up to the divorce--have no bearing whatsoever in a court of justice. But no one wants us to bring at-fault divorce back.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

EllisRedding said:


> Rock on SA, always good to see reference to cheating/wanting out as betrayal to the traditional lifestyle/family.
> 
> *As far as the gardner, sounds like you already have someone picked out* >


Ha ha.. really we'd never be able to afford a gardener.. I am the gardener! .. one morning I got up, decided I'm tired of waiting to get those 5 red bud trees I've been wanting.... drove to Lowes, loaded the truck, came home, dug the holes & planted them all by the time he pulled in the driveway... so proud of myself.. 










That example is more of something I'd see in a Lifetime movie... always something dripping with betrayal on there..


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> The problem with this idea is that the "spouse" is no longer a spouse after D. If your spouse has to take care of you, are you really divorced?


It is about responsibility, and gratitude for capital and services. Same as a company paying severance or providing a pension. Same as a company donating money to a town library or park. Same as a nation providing education and health care coverage. 

Think in terms of the greater good. Society needs stability. And if people do not feel treated fairly, you will not have stability. And part of feeling treated fairly is appreciation for the human capital and services you have provided.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> I don't think that's emotional at all. It's about Mens Rea. It's about justice. There's something to be said if someone violated their oaths before God and the courts; violated contractual obligation. There is a case to be made for this being absolutely just.
> 
> What's not just is claiming that the intent of the parties--and their actions leading up to the divorce--have no bearing whatsoever in a court of justice. *But no one wants us to bring at-fault divorce back*.


I believe that fault should come into play -especially in terms of division of assets. However -like in everything else -there would need to be definable degrees of fault. 

with the caveat being -whatever the offense (not counting the most outrageous offences murder/mayhem/ etc..) -would not relieve the spouses from their shared responsibility to make sure the other is whole, so to speak, after the union is broken.


----------



## samyeagar

jld said:


> It is about responsibility, and gratitude for capital and services. Same as a company paying severance or providing a pension. Same as a company donating money to a town library or park. Same as a nation providing education and health care coverage.
> 
> *Think in terms of the greater good*. Society needs stability. And if people do not feel treated fairly, you will not have stability. And part of feeling treated fairly is appreciation for the human capital and services you have provided.


Some of the worst things in humanity have been done under the guise "for the greater good."


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> It is about responsibility, and gratitude for capital and services. Same as a company paying severance or providing a pension. Same as a company donating money to a town library or park. Same as a nation providing education and health care coverage.
> 
> Think in terms of the greater good. Society needs stability. And if people do not feel treated fairly, you will not have stability. And part of feeling treated fairly is appreciation for the human capital and services you have provided.


I think we define "the greater good" differently. Whose greater good? 

One partner's contribution is being weighed, while the other's is not in alimony. And even in severance,* it is not lifetime severance*. It is very short-term--and typically in a lump sum. In my state, severance isn't required, it is done for 2 reasons: 1) to reduce unemployment compensation cost for the employer or 2) Noblesse Oblige. 

I'm also not all that concerned with peoples _feelings_ in the sense of a legal system. I'm concerned with whether they are treated _justly_ by the legal system. You control your feelings, no one else does.

Alimony is not the same as a company donating to a park or a library or a charity. It is not given freely--as money is in those situations--it is taken forcibly at gunpoint. These are not equal situations, so to compare them is a mistake.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Kivlor said:


> *I don't think that's emotional at all. *It's about Mens Rea. It's about justice. There's something to be said if someone violated their oaths before God and the courts; violated contractual obligation. There is a case to be made for this being absolutely just.


 It was stated it's purely an emotional argument earlier in this thread...going by that.. I have not been keeping up with the posts here... I just check in , then off somewhere else.. 

Basically ANYTHING that was intended for GOOD can be corrupted badly .. why would alimony be any different. 



> What's not just is claiming that the intent of the parties--and their actions leading up to the divorce--have no bearing whatsoever in a court of justice. *But no one wants us to bring at-fault divorce back*.


 Probably even "at fault" divorce didn't bring justice.. depends on whose lens one looks through.. take my parents.. she didn't love my father, and didn't want to have sex (I actually blame my mother more for the fall out -she even told me my father was a good man, still says it today)... but guess what... he ended up sleeping with her best friend (my mom didn't care!).. hmmmm who would win that one in court -they didn't fight over anything.. he gave her 1st choice of what she wanted.. 

I guess my Mom was 1 month shy of getting alimony from my dad.. She mentioned this one day to me... she got a full time job Ok.. I went to live with her... we had a little house.. she even had an opportunity to buy it.. then her BAD choices with men ruined her life.. she didn't want my dad.. but she sure didn't seem to mind a couple womanizers.. I'll never understand.


----------



## soccermom2three

You will never be able to convince that alimony is a bad thing. I've known too many women that were left high and dry by their husbands. I'm not talking about women in their 30's that can start a career but women in their 60's who spent almost a lifetime taking care of the home, the children and their husbands.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I think we define "the greater good" differently. Whose greater good?
> 
> One partner's contribution is being weighed, while the other's is not in alimony. And even in severance,* it is not lifetime severance*. It is very short-term--and typically in a lump sum. In my state, severance isn't required, it is done for 2 reasons: 1) to reduce unemployment compensation cost for the employer or 2) Noblesse Oblige.
> 
> I'm also not all that concerned with peoples _feelings_ in the sense of a legal system. I'm concerned with whether they are treated _justly_ by the legal system. You control your feelings, no one else does.
> 
> Alimony is not the same as a company donating to a park or a library or a charity. It is not given freely--as money is in those situations--it is taken forcibly at gunpoint. These are not equal situations, so to compare them is a mistake.


And what do you think noblesse oblige/donating to civic betterment is about?

You have to share to keep some sense of fairness and the resulting stability in a free society.

Stability. It keeps society governable. Which is the surest way to keep the wealthy, wealthy. Which seems pretty important to some folks here.


----------



## jld

Zanne said:


> Agreed. In my case, my husband left me and our youngest son with no warning, a month behind on the bills, no car, and zero money. He had every right to leave, but he left us in a very vulnerable position.
> 
> Although I enjoyed being a SAHM, during some of that time it was a necessity because two of our kids had life threatening illnesses. Also, I didn't plan to stay jobless forever. I went back to finish my degree several years ago. But I was also working full time to support us because my husband couldn't maintain a steady job. My father often said that I was the glue that held our family together.
> 
> So who should support me now? With no college degree and gaps in my resume, my earning potential is low. I can't even support my son right now. And my husband isn't supporting him either! He has been staying with his grandma. When my husband left us, someone else helped me get a car and paid for our bills until I found a job - two jobs, in fact. But I still couldn't make enough and we had to move out of our house and I got an apartment. If that person had not helped us out, guess who the payor would be - the government. Fair or not?


And that is how it goes for the taxpayer. We end up supporting those who cannot support themselves. Because we still have enough decency to not let people starve and freeze to death on the streets.


----------



## lifeistooshort

Kivlor said:


> I think we define "the greater good" differently. Whose greater good?
> 
> One partner's contribution is being weighed, while the other's is not in alimony. And even in severance,* it is not lifetime severance*. It is very short-term--and typically in a lump sum. In my state, severance isn't required, it is done for 2 reasons: 1) to reduce unemployment compensation cost for the employer or 2) Noblesse Oblige.
> 
> I'm also not all that concerned with peoples _feelings_ in the sense of a legal system. I'm concerned with whether they are treated _justly_ by the legal system. You control your feelings, no one else does.
> 
> Alimony is not the same as a company donating to a park or a library or a charity. It is not given freely--as money is in those situations--it is taken forcibly at gunpoint. These are not equal situations, so to compare them is a mistake.


I understand your argument about justice, I really do. It's distasteful that a cheating skvnk can continue to take your money after you're divorced. 

I get that and it would p!ss me off of if I had to pay me ex for being a d!ck.

But my argument is two fold:

There's no way this can be applied fairly. If a stay at home is to be punished for breaking vows, how do working spouses get comparably punished? A cheating hb with a stay at home wife will pay alimony anyway, so in effect his punishment is less. Would you support him paying double to be comparably punished for violating his vows? What if he'd cheated after his wife refused sex, like SA's mom? Should he still be punished? And you're going to need to punish for all faults, which will be highly subjective. 

If you refuse to punish the working spouse comparably you've said that the stay at home's contributions are worth less, that they should be punished more for the same transgression.

Second, as I keep arguing a spouse's poor decision to cheat has nothing to do with their contribution to the family. Alimony is in effect payment for contributions to the family as they gave up a paycheck to stay home. 

Let's concoct a more extreme scenario: guy stays home for 20 years which allows wife to further her career as a doctor. Hb really doesn't get enough sex, though he does get some starfish sex. And wife, while not mean, isn't all that affectionate. Hb craves intimacy and one day meets someone who gives him that. He makes a poor decision to cheat with her.

So by your logic, he violated his vows and wife can throw him out, keep the kids snd pay no alimony, even though he just sacrificed 20 years of his life allowing her to build a career? His cheating, while crappy, doesn't nullify what he's sacrificed and the fact is that his marital dynamic was complicated, like most marriages.

Maybe his wife violated vows by witholding affection, but good luck proving that. 

This idea that you'll bring back fault and the cheater will get theirs and nothing else will come of it is ill conceived. 

There's a reason the courts got rid of fault. It can't be applied fairly and it will be abused by those with little to lose.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

samyeagar said:


> When it comes to the SAHP, there seems to be an assumption that they took care of everything, worked really hard, but what if they just sucked at it? What if the working parent taking care of a lot of the household stuff too, where it wasn't a one parent works, the other takes care of the house, but rather one parent works, and the housework is split 50/50? *Claiming the label SAHP doesn't mean a damned thing unless the job is done and done well.*


 I agree with you Sam! I hate to say this about an old friend of mine.. known her since 10th grade.. she never worked...her husband was a Farmer.. he worked REALLY HARD.. long hours...only to come in the house, have to cook for himself & do his own laundry yet ! I used to bring food when I visited her cause I felt sorry for him [email protected]#

I also tried to clean the house some when I was there.. when they had a couple kids.. she just lost momentum... she would have her complaints about him too.. that he didn't spend enough time with her.. or that things needed fixed around the house...

All I could see in that was.. had she been taking care of HER END OF THINGS.. he would have had MORE TIME to be with her & get to those things... 

Just very sad .. what I felt was such an easy solution. to bring them closer together...If I said too much or sounded like I was taking his side...she wouldn't appreciate it..


----------



## naiveonedave

I actually think if there was moral outrage for infidelity and abandonment and then legal penalties for lying, there would be support for at fault D. The problem is that, as @LifeIsShort points out, no good way to make things fair, as in general, the unfairness are outliers.


----------



## samyeagar

soccermom2three said:


> You will never be able to convince that alimony is a bad thing. I've known too many women that were left high and dry by their husbands. I'm not talking about women in their 30's that can start a career but *women in their 60's who spent almost a lifetime taking care of the home, the children and their husbands*.


This is a different situation than many of us are talking about. In the case of the 60+ year old woman whose husband leaves her high and dry, one would presume that the kids had been out of the house for a while, so no particular compelling reason she had not reentered the workforce other than personal choice. Also, one could presume a long term marriage at that point, and lifetime alimony for someone in their sixties is likely to only last a decade or so anyway.

I think there is a general agreement that alimony, in a limited, reahbilitative capacity is perfectly fine, reasonable, and just especially when one partner was a SAHP.

The agreement starts to diverge when the alimony starts to become punitive in nature, leaving the payor, when child support is taken into account, with virtually zero left over, long term to lifetime alimony that exceeds the length of the marriage.


----------



## anonmd

I bet there are not too many men who divorce 60+ year old women who were taking care of the home, children and their husbands. More like F! this, I've had enough...


----------



## jld

anonmd said:


> I bet there are not too many men who divorce 60+ year old women who were taking care of the home, children and their husbands. More like F! this, I've had enough...


 @lifeistooshort linked a great story about this a few weeks ago . . .


----------



## bfree

What's sad is that we have 371 posts on a debate over alimony when in reality alimony shouldn't be needed in a civilized compassionate society. To me it's symptomatic of a greater problem, lack of honor and responsibility. Whatever happened to the days when infidelity and abandonment were frowned upon and those that had no morals were shamed by others? Now we rely on government and the courts to arbitrate morality and since when has that ever worked out well.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## Sbrown

jld said:


> I don't think alimony should even be up for debate or refusal. One of the most immoral things I have seen on TAM is men in particular being encouraged to go along with a WW's guilty refusal of alimony, even after they have been married many years and have children.
> 
> I am surprised courts even allow this, considering the likelihood that these women may end up on some sort of state aid without the financial help of their ex-husbands. That just shifts the burden to the taxpayer.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


It shifts the burden to the wife, she shifts it to the tax payer. 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Pluto2

samyeagar said:


> This is a different situation than many of us are talking about. In the case of the 60+ year old woman whose husband leaves her high and dry, one would presume that the kids had been out of the house for a while, so no particular compelling reason she had not reentered the workforce other than personal choice. Also, one could presume a long term marriage at that point, and lifetime alimony for someone in their sixties is likely to only last a decade or so anyway.
> 
> I think there is a general agreement that alimony, in a limited, reahbilitative capacity is perfectly fine, reasonable, and just especially when one partner was a SAHP.
> 
> The agreement starts to diverge when the alimony starts to become punitive in nature, leaving the payor, when child support is taken into account, with virtually zero left over, long term to lifetime alimony that exceeds the length of the marriage.



The assumptions you make are staggering.

A woman out of the workforce for 20+ years raising kids. You ASSUME she will return to the workforce. Fat chance on that. And as what a cashier or minimum wage worker at McDonald's? All to avoid alimony. 

You ASSUME lifetime alimony will be for a decade in such a situation? Most people live well beyond 70. And you assume everyone gets lifetime awards. Most jurisdictions don't.

Alimony isn't punitive. In the emotions of divorce, it becomes that way by injured parties.


----------



## Sbrown

Why do we insist on everyone else making our choices easier to live with when they do not go as planned? 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## samyeagar

Pluto2 said:


> *The assumptions you make are staggering.*
> 
> A woman out of the workforce for 20+ years raising kids. You ASSUME she will return to the workforce. Fat chance on that. And as what a cashier or minimum wage worker at McDonald's? All to avoid alimony.
> 
> You ASSUME lifetime alimony will be for a decade in such a situation? Most people live well beyond 70. And you assume everyone gets lifetime awards. Most jurisdictions don't.
> 
> Alimony isn't punitive. In the emotions of divorce, it becomes that way by injured parties.


No more staggering than some of the other assumptions being made. Most here were not really disputing the situation I said that about. Lifetime alimony with someone that age after presumably a very long marriage at that age is not terribly unreasonable, though it virtually guarantees that the person paying it will never retire.

About alimony not being punative...what would you call combined alimony and child support in the amount that does not leave enough money to pay taxes and medical insurance, for a duration longer than the marriage was?


----------



## Pluto2

SY, it really does depend on your point of view. I imputed income to my ex. (only for CS, and I know this isn't a child support thread, but for purposes of this argument it is the same). He has voluntarily quit a good paying job, refused to work and lied about attempts to work until the D. (He has .....issues). So to him, the order is grossly unfair. To me and the kids, not so much. Now he avoids a garnishment order by working off the books whenever possible.


----------



## jld

Sbrown said:


> It shifts the burden to the wife, she shifts it to the tax payer.
> 
> Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


The state is looking for who can pay. The higher earning spouse is usually the first person looked at.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## MarriedDude

bfree said:


> What's sad is that we have 371 posts on a debate over alimony when in reality alimony shouldn't be needed in a civilized compassionate society. *To me it's symptomatic of a greater problem, lack of honor and responsibility.* Whatever happened to the days when infidelity and abandonment were frowned upon and those that had no morals were shamed by others? Now we rely on government and the courts to arbitrate morality and since when has that ever worked out well.


My thoughts almost exactly. 

To abandon a former partner to poverty dishonors both the abandoner as well as the union they once had. 

Too much Me Me Me has become the standard


----------



## samyeagar

Pluto2 said:


> SY, it really does depend on your point of view. I imputed income to my ex. (only for CS, and I know this isn't a child support thread, but for purposes of this argument it is the same). He has voluntarily quit a good paying job, refused to work and lied about attempts to work until the D. (He has .....issues). So to him, the order is grossly unfair. To me and the kids, not so much. Now he avoids a garnishment order by working off the books whenever possible.


Working off the books is criminal, and if he is doing that to avoid a garnishment order, have you pursued that with the courts? There are remedies for discovery when the person paying is suspected of things like this. I know, because I have had them done to me, multiple times.


----------



## samyeagar

MarriedDude said:


> My thoughts almost exactly.
> 
> To abandon a former partner to poverty dishonors both the abandoner as well as the union they once had.
> 
> Too much Me Me Me has become the standard


What's with the assumption that the one paying is the one who left?

And court ordering a former partner into poverty is more honorable?


----------



## naiveonedave

MarriedDude said:


> My thoughts almost exactly.
> 
> To abandon a former partner to poverty dishonors both the abandoner as well as the union they once had.
> 
> Too much Me Me Me has become the standard


To me it is about who does the abandoning. If the sahp jumps ship for a not so real cause or the working parent bails due to the 4 As, I really don't think it is incumbent on them to view the ex as anything the need to support. The ex brought it on themselves.


----------



## tech-novelist

Kivlor said:


> I don't think that's emotional at all. It's about Mens Rea. It's about justice. There's something to be said if someone violated their oaths before God and the courts; violated contractual obligation. There is a case to be made for this being absolutely just.
> 
> What's not just is claiming that the intent of the parties--and their actions leading up to the divorce--have no bearing whatsoever in a court of justice. But no one wants us to bring at-fault divorce back.


What *I* want is all of this laid out before you can get married, so both parties know what they are signing up for and can modify the agreement if they want to; then the government enforces it as written.

That would solve most if not all of these problems.


----------



## Pluto2

samyeagar said:


> Working off the books is criminal, and if he is doing that to avoid a garnishment order, have you pursued that with the courts? There are remedies for discovery when the person paying is suspected of things like this. I know, because I have had them done to me, multiple times.


Of course I have.
He is in another state and enforcement across state lines is hit and miss.

But my point is, there is an order obligating my ex to pay more than he earns (at least as far as the AG can prove). It is not an unfair order. It is not a punitive order. The ex sees it as punitive.


----------



## tech-novelist

Sbrown said:


> Why do we insist on everyone else making our choices easier to live with when they do not go as planned?


Because "we" can? That seems to be Bernie Sanders' platform in a nutshell...


----------



## naiveonedave

Pluto2 said:


> But my point is, there is an order obligating my ex to pay more than he earns (at least as far as the AG can prove). It is not an unfair order. It is not a punitive order. The ex sees it as punitive.


So you are ecstatic that an order exists that is physically impossible for someone to meet? If he paid, how would he survive? He would go to jail for tax evasion or worse. That is punitive and unfair. If the AG could prove he makes more money, that makes him a liar, but since no one can prove it, the government is being punitive and unfair.


----------



## tech-novelist

Pluto2 said:


> Of course I have.
> He is in another state and enforcement across state lines is hit and miss.
> 
> But my point is, there is an order obligating my ex to pay more than he earns (at least as far as the AG can prove). It is not an unfair order. It is not a punitive order. The ex sees it as punitive.


Um, I'm having a hard time understanding this.

Yes, one definition of punitive is "intended to punish". But another is "extremely or unfairly severe or high" (Punitive | Definition of Punitive by Merriam-Webster).

Are you actually saying that an order obligating someone to *pay more than he earns* is not punitive, in the second meaning?

What *would *be punitive then?


----------



## Ripper

Alimony should flat out be done away with. We are now in the business of screwing over the many to protect just a few.

Many years ago, the narrative that a bunch of men were running off from their faithful wives of 50+ years and leaving them barefoot and destitute might have held water. Now days, it doesn't.

Today, the vast majority of divorces are filed by women. Depending on sources between 60-80%. 

Almost all alimony payments goes to women. Some sources as high at 96%.

Put those figures together and I guarantee far more men are paying alimony to women who chose to divorce or were at fault for it then to loyal brides abandoned in their twilight years.

Personally, I believe alimony will eventually go away. I predict that once men start getting close to achieving parity with women on alimony awards, say around 30%, it will be gone within the next legislate session.

*I realize that a couple of female posters here have had the misfortune of having to pay alimony. It pisses me off for you too.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## tech-novelist

Zanne said:


> Guys, I think you missed the part where she said he is working off the books - on purpose.


No, I didn't miss that, but I don't care. No one should be threatened with prison for not paying money to someone else. They don't even do that to people who default on student loans, and that is like indentured servitude.


----------



## MarriedDude

samyeagar said:


> What's with the assumption that the one paying is the one who left?
> 
> And court ordering a former partner into poverty is more honorable?


Should have made that more clear....Both the one who left (if it occurred that way) and the one who abandons the other to poverty (could be the same person or not)...Dishonors both.

And....I will stipulate that i have never thought ANY US civilian court system was or is honorable


----------



## naiveonedave

Zanne said:


> Guys, I think you missed the part where she said he is working off the books - on purpose.


If the AG can't prove it, it isn't real in the eyes of the law


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## MarriedDude

technovelist said:


> What *I* want is all of this laid out before you can get married, so both parties know what they are signing up for and can modify the agreement if they want to; then the government enforces it as written.
> 
> That would solve most if not all of these problems.


^^^^^^This would be the most logical way to deal with these issues moving forward as a society. 


Therefore...I predict....it will never happen.

Because we, as humans, tend to suck at such things.


----------



## tech-novelist

MarriedDude said:


> ^^^^^^This would be the most logical way to deal with these issues moving forward as a society.
> 
> 
> Therefore...I predict....it will never happen.
> 
> Because we, as humans, tend to suck at such things.


I'm more optimistic. I think it will happen...

But not until a cataclysmic collapse of society due to men's refusal to marry.

Hmm, maybe I'm not that optimistic after all.


----------



## MarriedDude

technovelist said:


> No, I didn't miss that, but I don't care. No one should be threatened with prison for not paying money to someone else. *They don't even do that to people who default on student loans*, and that is like indentured servitude.


But I can see that coming


----------



## MarriedDude

technovelist said:


> I'm more optimistic. I think it will happen...
> 
> But not until a cataclysmic collapse of society due to men's refusal to marry.
> 
> Hmm, maybe I'm not that optimistic after all.


Ha Ha...you believed in people...


----------



## Pluto2

technovelist said:


> Um, I'm having a hard time understanding this.
> 
> Yes, one definition of punitive is "intended to punish". But another is "extremely or unfairly severe or high" (Punitive | Definition of Punitive by Merriam-Webster).
> 
> Are you actually saying that an order obligating someone to *pay more than he earns* is not punitive, in the second meaning?
> 
> What *would *be punitive then?


He came into court unemployed. Income was imputed to him due to his established work history and voluntary unemployment, so no, I do not see the order as extremely unfair, and hence not punitive.

For alimony purposes, imagine a high-earner spouse who quits his/her job before court for the sole purpose of avoiding an alimony award to the SAHP. The court will impute income. No it is not punitive. No more so than hiding assets to avoid equitable distribution.


----------



## MarriedDude

Pluto2 said:


> He came into court unemployed. Income was imputed to him due to his *established work history and voluntary unemployment*, so no, I do not see the order as extremely unfair, and hence not punitive.
> 
> For alimony purposes, imagine a high-earner spouse who quits his/her job before court for the sole purpose of avoiding an alimony award to the SAHP. The court will impute income. No it is not punitive. No more so than hiding assets to avoid equitable distribution.


Seems reasonable...If I voluntarily quit working...I would not expect my creditors to just say.."OK...no problem...just lets us know when you decide to earn money again".


----------



## Kivlor

lifeistooshort said:


> I understand your argument about justice, I really do. It's distasteful that a cheating skvnk can continue to take your money after you're divorced.
> 
> I get that and it would p!ss me off of if I had to pay me ex for being a d!ck.
> 
> But my argument is two fold:
> 
> There's no way this can be applied fairly. If a stay at home is to be punished for breaking vows, how do working spouses get comparably punished? A cheating hb with a stay at home wife will pay alimony anyway, so in effect his punishment is less. Would you support him paying double to be comparably punished for violating his vows? What if he'd cheated after his wife refused sex, like SA's mom? Should he still be punished? And you're going to need to punish for all faults, which will be highly subjective.
> 
> If you refuse to punish the working spouse comparably you've said that the stay at home's contributions are worth less, that they should be punished more for the same transgression.
> 
> Second, as I keep arguing a spouse's poor decision to cheat has nothing to do with their contribution to the family. Alimony is in effect payment for contributions to the family as they gave up a paycheck to stay home.
> 
> Let's concoct a more extreme scenario: guy stays home for 20 years which allows wife to further her career as a doctor. Hb really doesn't get enough sex, though he does get some starfish sex. And wife, while not mean, isn't all that affectionate. Hb craves intimacy and one day meets someone who gives him that. He makes a poor decision to cheat with her.
> 
> So by your logic, he violated his vows and wife can throw him out, keep the kids snd pay no alimony, even though he just sacrificed 20 years of his life allowing her to build a career? His cheating, while crappy, doesn't nullify what he's sacrificed and the fact is that his marital dynamic was complicated, like most marriages.
> 
> Maybe his wife violated vows by witholding affection, but good luck proving that.
> 
> This idea that you'll bring back fault and the cheater will get theirs and nothing else will come of it is ill conceived.
> 
> There's a reason the courts got rid of fault. It can't be applied fairly and it will be abused by those with little to lose.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I'm not really saying we should go back to at-fault, but I think that is the only system under which alimony would have any place. There's an argument to be made for alimony in an at-fault system.

I'm okay with going either way. At-fault with alimony, or no fault, no alimony. We operate in a no-fault system, so I am opposed to alimony.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> And what do you think noblesse oblige/donating to civic betterment is about?
> 
> You have to share to keep some sense of fairness and the resulting stability in a free society.
> 
> Stability. It keeps society governable. Which is the surest way to keep the wealthy, wealthy. Which seems pretty important to some folks here.


Please read my previous statement.

Noblesse Oblige is given freely. Donations are given freely. 

Alimony is taken by force. 

When people share, they freely give a portion of what they have to another person. Theft is when something is taken by force.

Do you see what is different about these concepts, and why they are not comparable?


----------



## tech-novelist

MarriedDude said:


> Seems reasonable...If I voluntarily quit working...I would not expect my creditors to just say.."OK...no problem...just lets us know when you decide to earn money again".


Would you expect your creditors to be able to have you thrown in prison, without even a trial?


----------



## lifeistooshort

Kivlor said:


> I'm not really saying we should go back to at-fault, but I think that is the only system under which alimony would have any place. There's an argument to be made for alimony in an at-fault system.
> 
> I'm okay with going either way. At-fault with alimony, or no fault, no alimony. We operate in a no-fault system, so I am opposed to alimony.


Understand that I make my argument with no dog in the fight. I did not ask for it when I was probably entitled to it and even if I were to divorce now I have no reason to ask for any as we have no kids together and I make more then my husband.

So my arguments are purely from an outside observer's perspective, which can sometimes be the most objective.


----------



## MarriedDude

technovelist said:


> Would you expect your creditors to be able to have you thrown in prison, without even a trial?


No, I would not expect that.....

However, it would seem reasonable that putting someone in jail -for not paying a debt that they lack the means to pay would not further the cause of collection of the debt....

But, the way the courts work...I can see that maybe happening since - 

I believe (not 100% certain) that currently -failing to pay mandated support -can result in the loss of professional licenses/drivers licenses/etc..which also does not lend itself to collection.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> Please read my previous statement.
> 
> Noblesse Oblige is given freely. Donations are given freely.
> 
> *Alimony is taken by force. *
> 
> When people share, they freely give a portion of what they have to another person. Theft is when something is taken by force.
> 
> Do you see what is different about these concepts, and why they are not comparable?


I don't see that it is taken by force...per se. More so that there are consequences for not paying. As we have already read here -not paying is an option for those that are ready to work for cash or just not work at all.


----------



## MarriedDude

Zanne said:


> *Well, we have been empowered to leave a relationship if it is not healthy for us, but unfortunately women still lag men in earning power*, not to mention we are usually the ones who stayed home with the kids and took a career hit there too. Rehabilitative alimony can compensate for that.


That, to me, is the crux of the dilemma. When the argument is made that alimony should not be paid because the former spouse must support themselves...in the case of females that requirement is more difficult than it is for males. 

One could make the argument that women have been punished for many decades and continue to be punished for being homemakers/child bearers/carers/etc and that said punishment evidences itself in the form of lower pay. Alimony could be said to be rectifying that injustice one woman at a time. 

I could be wrong -but I believe that women have been cheated out of proper pay for longer than I have been alive. That fact -colors my opinion on alimony. 

It appears that in the case of finances both before and after a marriage that females have a tougher road to hoe. I'm not saying that this is always the case...as in SY's dilemma...but it is an issue and it is part of the issue of alimony


----------



## Sbrown

MarriedDude said:


> My thoughts almost exactly.
> 
> To abandon a former partner to poverty dishonors both the abandoner as well as the union they once had.
> 
> Too much Me Me Me has become the standard


Lol sometimes the one abandoning the marriage is the one demanding the alimony..... 

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Buddy400

samyeagar said:


> Classic.


If it weren't for the 13,000+ posts, I'd think that the person with this attitude was a troll.


----------



## Buddy400

lifeistooshort said:


> Or is it that stay at homes are of inherently lesser value and should thus be punished more harshly for the same transgression?
> 
> Stay at home's should think carefully about what this implies about their contributions if they are to be punished more harshly then anyone else.


There nothing here that works only against the SAHP.

If the SAHP cheats, they get no alimony (it was their decision to end the marriage).

If the SAHP's spouse cheats, the SAHP gets lifetime alimony which allows them to continue living in the manner to which they were accustomed (it was not their decision to end the marriage).

Or, they can work out something mutually agreed to.


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> I don't see that it is taken by force...per se. More so that there are consequences for not paying. As we have already read here -not paying is an option for those that are ready to work for cash or just not work at all.


Right. If you refuse, they send armed soldiers to collect. If you further refuse, you end up in prison or die.

That's not force. Nope, not at all


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> Right. If you refuse, they send armed soldiers to collect. If you further refuse, you end up in prison or die.
> 
> That's not force. Nope, not at all


Give me 1...just 1 example of armed soldiers collecting alimony.


----------



## Kivlor

MarriedDude said:


> Give me 1...just 1 example of armed soldiers collecting alimony.


What is a police officer? The law doesn't send people to request that you kindly pay up. When you don't, they send armed men to take the money, or your person. I would dare anyone to test this by resisting them physically. It will not end well.

It takes some seriously flawed reasoning to think that court-ordered alimony is not taken by force, but given freely. 

It's okay to say you're willing to use force for this purpose. That's part of the debate to be had. But to pretend that it isn't force? You can lie to yourself...


----------



## Pluto2

Kivlor said:


> What is a police officer? The law doesn't send people to request that you kindly pay up. When you don't, they send armed men to take the money, or your person. I would dare anyone to test this by resisting them physically. It will not end well.
> 
> It takes some seriously flawed reasoning to think that court-ordered alimony is not taken by force, but given freely.
> 
> It's okay to say you're willing to use force for this purpose. That's part of the debate to be had. But to pretend that it isn't force? You can lie to yourself...


How would you enforce a court order without the inevitable threat of incarceration for contempt of the court's ruling?


----------



## tech-novelist

MarriedDude said:


> No, I would not expect that.....
> 
> However, it would seem reasonable that putting someone in jail -for not paying a debt that they lack the means to pay would not further the cause of collection of the debt....
> 
> But, the way the courts work...I can see that maybe happening since -
> 
> I believe (not 100% certain) that currently -failing to pay mandated support -can result in the loss of professional licenses/drivers licenses/etc..which also does not lend itself to collection.


Yes, I believe that is true also, but is just adding insult to injury.

One of the main reasons that debtor's prisons were eliminated is that it's hard to make much money in prison. Only in "family court" cases is this practice continued, without even the formality of a trial.


----------



## tech-novelist

Pluto2 said:


> How would you enforce a court order without the inevitable threat of incarceration for contempt of the court's ruling?


Why are no other debts collected in this way?


----------



## samyeagar

MarriedDude said:


> Seems reasonable...If I voluntarily quit working...I would not expect my creditors to just say.."OK...no problem...just lets us know when you decide to earn money again".


But that is essentially what the court would say when the creditor sued for payment. There would be a garnishment order, possibly an income tax return lien, and maybe a bank account seizure, but no where in there could the court legally order nearing 100% or more of the persons income paid to the creditor, or put the person in jail.


----------



## samyeagar

naiveonedave said:


> If the AG can't prove it, it isn't real in the eyes of the law


This is just it...I think it is likely that the ex is doing just this...working off the books, but if it can't be proven, then it is not actionable. Now, if there is actual proof, other than a feeling, or just knowing, then it needs to be handed over to the family courts.

My ex wife tried to do the whole...he's hiding money thing, and quite literally, all she had was she just thought I was. No proof what so ever, because I wasn't doing that, therefore no proof existed. Hell, I wasn't even late on my payments. She still went to the courts with her feelings, and they ordered a full audit to the point of physically looking at all of my assets at my home to make sure my standard of living was in line with what I was keeping from my income, bank account records, credit reports, all that. She even tried to argue that the car I was driving should be counted as income since my parents were making the payments on it. Got my parents all dragged into it. All of that didn't cost her a dime, and since she didn't have a job, didn't cost her any time either.

As far as voluntary unemployment goes, she flat out refused to get a job once all of the kids were in school full time, and as we were spiraling towards bankruptcy because of her spending, her solution was me working overtime or working a second job, drove my earnings up even higher. So yeah, I get the whole voluntary unemployment to manipulate the outcome in a divorce.

My point being, even if he is not paying now, the court order is still there, and when proof of his illegal activities beyond just feeling like he is, he can be held accountable. There are remedies in place for people like him if someone pushes hard enough to use them.


----------



## samyeagar

Pluto2 said:


> How would you enforce a court order without the inevitable threat of incarceration for contempt of the court's ruling?


There is criminal court, civil court, and family court. Family court seems to take the worst of the other two. Criminal can incarcerate people, civil can garnish up to a certain relatively small percentage, but doesn't incarcerate, and family can garnish all the way up to and exceeding 100%, and incarcerate.


----------



## Pluto2

No. you are incorrect.

Every court has the authority to rule on a criminal contempt matter. Contempt can be civil or, when sufficiently egregious, criminal that carries with it imprisonment.


----------



## Kivlor

Pluto2 said:


> How would you enforce a court order without the inevitable threat of incarceration for contempt of the court's ruling?


My point exactly.

To pretend it isn't force is disingenuous. Now, if we want to discuss whether it's a just use of force...

We do not use this method to force the collection of any other civil debt. Why should alimony be special? We did away with debtor's prison for a reason. This is the last bastion of it, and it's time for it to end.


----------



## samyeagar

Pluto2 said:


> No. you are incorrect.
> 
> Every court has the authority to rule on a criminal contempt matter. Contempt can be civil or, when sufficiently egregious, criminal that carries with it imprisonment.


When there is a violation of the court order, yes in every court, contempt can be ruled, with accompanying jail time. In civil court, when there is a judgement against a debtor, in favor of the creditor, it does not provide remedy to make perfect the debt. It is the responsibility of the creditor to take the garnishment order to the employer, the IRS, appropriate property licensing agency for say a lien on a car or house. Since the burden of collection is transferred to the creditor, the debtor is no longer in jeopardy of violating the court order to pay, therefore, they can't be held in contempt. The employer however can face penalties if they disregard a garnishment order.


----------



## Pluto2

You are not answer my question.

Why should a court not be entitled to enforce its orders with the power of contempt? The contempt of an order is a separate act from the failure to pay. Contempt power is available for the enforcement of any order.

It sounds as though you want to be the arbiter of whether or not the order is just. That ship has sailed.


----------



## samyeagar

Pluto2 said:


> You are not answer my question.
> 
> *Why should a court not be entitled to enforce its orders with the power of contempt?* The contempt of an order is a separate act from the failure to pay. Contempt power is available for the enforcement of any order.
> 
> It sounds as though you want to be the arbiter of whether or not the order is just. That ship has sailed.


Because it is against the law to jail for failure to pay a debt.

It's not the debt that gets you. Even in the extraordinary situation where a court actually orders "You will pay this amount on this date." there will be a hearing. So long as you show up to the hearing, even if you do not have the money, you will not be sent to jail for failure to pay. Failure to pay, by law, is not a jailable offense except in the cases of taxes and child support/alimony. Failure to appear for the hearing is the jailable offense.

THis is a pretty good explanation of how it all works...

The New Bill Collector Tactic: Jail Time | Nolo.com


----------



## Pluto2

All you are doing is refusing to recognize the difference between payment of a debt and enforcement of an order. They are different. Get sued for failing to pay a debt and refuse to appear-contempt and go to jail. Hide your assets from creditors and get charged with obstruction of the judicial process and go to jail.

Courts have and should have the power to enforce their orders. Sometimes those orders involve the payment of a financial obligation arising out of the dissolution of a marriage. Remove the contempt power and no one would ever have to abide by a court order.


----------



## anonmd

If a few hundred thousand women started having a huge percentage of their incomes confiscated this would go away. 

It'll never happen, no self respecting man would demand such a thing. 

The logic is stunning, we were married, all your income went to support the household and I fed you. Now we are divorced, here is a hundred bucks a week for food, what more do you expect? .


----------



## samyeagar

Pluto2 said:


> All you are doing is refusing to recognize the difference between payment of a debt and enforcement of an order. They are different. Get sued for failing to pay a debt and refuse to appear-contempt and go to jail. Hide your assets from creditors and get charged with obstruction of the judicial process and go to jail.
> 
> Courts have and should have the power to enforce their orders. Sometimes those orders involve the payment of a financial obligation arising out of the dissolution of a marriage. Remove the contempt power and no one would ever have to abide by a court order.


The burden is on the creditor to prove hidden assets. Once the interrogatories are done, if assets are found in the future that were not disclosed, then it is perjury, and jail time.

In a civil debt case, if the debtor follows all of the laws, does not do anything wrong, doesn't hide assets, they can not be jailed for failure to pay. Only in the case of taxes and child support and alimony can a person go to jail as a direct result of failure to pay. That is fine except for the fact that the courts can arbitrarily set the amount to be paid to a level that can not be paid. Another difference between a civil debt and alimony is that with civil debt, there is a defined and documents amount of debt brought by the creditor. In the case of alimony, it is the court that is defining the amount of debt, and it is not beholden to any of the other debt laws such as maximum garnishment percentages, frequency a bank account can be frozen.


----------



## Kivlor

Pluto2 said:


> You are not answer my question.
> 
> Why should a court not be entitled to enforce its orders with the power of contempt? The contempt of an order is a separate act from the failure to pay. Contempt power is available for the enforcement of any order.
> 
> It sounds as though you want to be the arbiter of whether or not the order is just. That ship has sailed.


I would like to have an honest conversation of whether or not it is just. I could be wrong, and all you need do is point it out. The ship can always return to port. We can change laws Pluto. The fact that a law exists doesn't make it just, any more than the fact that it came from a judge. 

If it is not just, then it should not be law. And we are discussing in this thread whether or not alimony should exist via force of law.

We do not permit a court to enforce payment orders via contempt of court for any other debt. Why is this different?


----------



## Pluto2

Kivlor said:


> We do not permit a court to enforce payment orders via contempt of court for any other debt. Why is this different?


Every order of a court, whether it be payment of alimony or payment of a credit card obligation can be subjected to a finding of contempt, depending on the behavior of the obligor.

I have yet to hear any reasons why spousal support should be exempt.


----------



## samyeagar

Pluto2 said:


> Every order of a court, whether it be payment of alimony or *payment of a credit card obligation can be subjected to a finding of contemp*t, depending on the behavior of the obligor.
> 
> I have yet to hear any reasons why spousal support should be exempt.


That is incorrect.

Can I be held in contempt of court for not paying my judgement (old credit card debt)? - Avvo.com


----------



## Kivlor

Pluto2 said:


> Every order of a court, whether it be payment of alimony or payment of a credit card obligation can be subjected to a finding of contempt, depending on the behavior of the obligor.
> 
> I have yet to hear any reasons why spousal support should be exempt.


I would suggest taking a closer look at how law works in the West. This would only be the case if it can be *proven in court* that assets have been hidden. Willfully. Which would require a trial.

It is unlawful in the US to hold a citizen in contempt for inability to pay a debt. That includes if they just stop working. It's not contempt to not have a job or to have insufficient income.


----------



## OpenWindows

Alimony and debt aren't quite the same thing. Debt is money borrowed, to be paid back, or payment for a service rendered. Alimony is not paying back money that was borrowed under an agreement, and is legally not considered to be payment for a service. It's a rough comparison.


----------



## Pluto2

As I said, it is dependent upon the behavior of the obigor.

Yes. a willful failure to abide by a court order in a non-famly law related debt case can result in an order of contempt. Failure to appear at a hearing, failure to file a schedule of assets, failure to produce documents, all within a civil debt action can result in a contempt charge. And if the conduct is sufficiently egregious, it can be criminal contempt.

The mere existence of a money judgment is not a jail-able offense.
Most orders of alimony are not a simple money judgement (although I suppose a lump sum award might be). They are orders of a court to act.

I understand the argument you are making that the order to pay is unfair. 

I don't think we will ever stop going around in circles.


----------



## MarriedDude

Kivlor said:


> I would like to have an honest conversation of whether or not it is just. I could be wrong, and all you need do is point it out. The ship can always return to port. We can change laws Pluto. *The fact that a law exists doesn't make it just*, any more than the fact that it came from a judge.
> 
> If it is not just, then it should not be law. And we are discussing in this thread whether or not alimony should exist via force of law.
> 
> We do not permit a court to enforce payment orders via contempt of court for any other debt. Why is this different?


Something everyone can agree on


----------



## samyeagar

OpenWindows said:


> Alimony and debt aren't quite the same thing. Debt is money borrowed, to be paid back, or payment for a service rendered. Alimony is not paying back money that was borrowed under an agreement, and is legally not considered to be payment for a service. It's a rough comparison.


Absolutely correct in that it isn't a debt.

In most jurisdictions, child support is calculated based on a formula, and takes into account various statutory deductions for the percentage calculation. There are caps as to what the maximum percentage of income can be regardless of how many kids are involved, and how many mothers are involved. Usually around 50-60% in egregious cases where the father has 6 or more kids with multiple women for example. In fact, in many jurisdictions where there is a state maximum garnishment percentage, creditors have to get in line once the maximum is reached, and the child support deduction counts towards that.

For example...state max for garnishment for debt is 15%...the person is paying child support at 32%. The creditor has to get in line until the child support is done as the law does not allow the garnishment to go any higher.

Alimony does not follow this. In most jurisdictions, it is completely arbitrary in amount and circumstances when ordered. There are loose guidelines with regards to duration, but it is perfectly allowable to order every remaining penny of their income after child support, leaving the person with literally zero money. If the person decided that food is important, then they can be thrown in jail for deciding to eat...something that can not be done for any other debt.


----------



## samyeagar

Where I live, even though alimony ends upon remarriage of the recipient, it was up to me to bring the motion to end, then prove that she was in fact married either through sworn deposition, or requesting and providing a marriage license. Until the final judgement was entered, I was obligated to continue paying, lest be jailed for failure to pay. My ex wife was able to delay the final judgement a considerable amount of time by filing a counter motion and then filing for extensions.

I was able to get a judgement ordering her to repay the amount I over paid retroactive to her marriage date. When she failed to pay in the allotted time, I did ask about contempt charges, and was informed that my recourse would be to take her to civil court getting a garnishment order, and the order to repay from the family court is not actionable because it was considered a debt. The garnishment order does not good because she does not have a job.


----------



## samyeagar

Pluto2 said:


> As I said, it is dependent upon the behavior of the obigor.
> 
> Yes. a willful failure to abide by a court order in a non-famly law related debt case can result in an order of contempt. Failure to appear at a hearing, failure to file a schedule of assets, failure to produce documents, all within a civil debt action can result in a contempt charge. And if the conduct is sufficiently egregious, it can be criminal contempt.
> 
> The mere existence of a money judgment is not a jail-able offense.
> Most orders of alimony are not a simple money judgement (although I suppose a lump sum award might be). They are orders of a court to act.
> 
> *I understand the argument you are making that the order to pay is unfair. *
> 
> I don't think we will ever stop going around in circles.


Then you do not understand my argument.

The order to pay, in and of itself is not unfair. The fact that the court can arbitrarily award up to and in excess of the entirety of a persons earnings, and then jail them if they do not pay is unfair.


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Then you do not understand my argument.
> 
> The order to pay, in and of itself is not unfair. *The fact that the court can arbitrarily award up to and in excess of the entirety of a persons earnings*, and then jail them if they do not pay is unfair.


What is the court's reason for doing that, again?

And @Pluto2, are you a lawyer?


----------



## Nynaeve

samyeagar said:


> Alimony does not follow this. In most jurisdictions, it is completely arbitrary in amount and circumstances when ordered. There are loose guidelines with regards to duration, but it is perfectly allowable to order every remaining penny of their income after child support, leaving the person with literally zero money. If the person decided that food is important, then they can be thrown in jail for deciding to eat...something that can not be done for any other debt.


Possible is not the same as probable or likely.

Yes, it's technically possible for an ex-spouse to be ordered to pay all of their income in CS and alimony. But it's highly unlikely. And you're leaving out the fact that any award of a trial judge can be appealed. It's super, super unlikely that an appellate court will uphold a ruling as ridiculous as that. (And if your lawyer lets that happen to you at trial, you should sue him/her for malpractice. Because that's absurd.)

Alimony is rare. Although it is technically possible... I would be extremely surprised if you could find even one actual case where a person was ordered to pay 100% of their income. That would just be stupid. A non-custodial parent gets visitation at least every other weekend in most cases. Judges are aware that the non-custodial parent needs to pay rent so their children have a roof over their heads during visitation. They aren't going to foolishly enter an order that means the kids don't have a place to stay or food to eat when they visit. Judges may not be sympathetic to the spouse they're order to pay alimony, but they are going to be careful not to enter an order that isn't in the best interest of the children.

It's also very rare for people to be jailed for failing to pay alimony. 

Failing to pay child support is different. There are far too many cases in some jurisdictions of people being jailed for failure to pay. I think some states are really messed up in that they do not provide public defenders to people facing jail sentences for failure to pay child support. I believe that if you're facing jail time, you should be provided a court appointed attorney if you can't afford one. It's a serious miscarriage of justice in those cases.

But seeing as how alimony is usually only ordered in cases involving higher-income people... it's a whole other ball of wax. 

Also, judges may have discretion in setting the amount of alimony, but a judge's discretion is not completely unlimited. There are standards of proof and standards of review that they have to meet. And their orders are stayed upon appeal. Appeals can get expensive. But it's not 100% of your income.

FTR: my state statutes provide for alimony only in very extreme cases. They favor equitable division of assets that may grant a bigger portion to a spouse who was SAH in order to rehabilitate. Alimony is very, very rare here.

Also FTR: my state's case law makes jail for failure to pay very difficult... have to prove that the failure to pay was willful and wanton.


----------



## samyeagar

Nynaeve said:


> Possible is not the same as probable or likely.
> 
> Yes, it's technically possible for an ex-spouse to be ordered to pay all of their income in CS and alimony. But it's highly unlikely. And you're leaving out the fact that any award of a trial judge can be appealed. It's super, super unlikely that an appellate court will uphold a ruling as ridiculous as that. (And if your lawyer lets that happen to you at trial, you should sue him/her for malpractice. Because that's absurd.)
> 
> Alimony is rare. Although it is technically possible... I would be extremely surprised if you could find even one actual case where a person was ordered to pay 100% of their income. That would just be stupid. A non-custodial parent gets visitation at least every other weekend in most cases. Judges are aware that the non-custodial parent needs to pay rent so their children have a roof over their heads during visitation. They aren't going to foolishly enter an order that means the kids don't have a place to stay or food to eat when they visit. Judges may not be sympathetic to the spouse they're order to pay alimony, but they are going to be careful not to enter an order that isn't in the best interest of the children.
> 
> It's also very rare for people to be jailed for failing to pay alimony.
> 
> Failing to pay child support is different. There are far too many cases in some jurisdictions of people being jailed for failure to pay. I think some states are really messed up in that they do not provide public defenders to people facing jail sentences for failure to pay child support. I believe that if you're facing jail time, you should be provided a court appointed attorney if you can't afford one. It's a serious miscarriage of justice in those cases.
> 
> But seeing as how alimony is usually only ordered in cases involving higher-income people... it's a whole other ball of wax.
> 
> Also, judges may have discretion in setting the amount of alimony, but a judge's discretion is not completely unlimited. There are standards of proof and standards of review that they have to meet. And their orders are stayed upon appeal. Appeals can get expensive. But it's not 100% of your income.
> 
> FTR: my state statutes provide for alimony only in very extreme cases. They favor equitable division of assets that may grant a bigger portion to a spouse who was SAH in order to rehabilitate. Alimony is very, very rare here.
> 
> Also FTR: my state's case law makes jail for failure to pay very difficult... have to prove that the failure to pay was willful and wanton.


Perhaps I should clarify...you are correct. The alimony award itself is not 100%

The initial offer made to me by my ex wife's attorney, between alimony, child support and her van payment would have amounted to over 85% of my gross income going into her household, not leaving me with enough to pay the taxes and mandatory health insurance for her and the children. Since my state has a formula to calculate child support, and since the van payment was a fixed amount, the only variable amount there was the alimony. She was also requesting lifetime alimony after a 17 year marriage of being a SAHM. She was 37 and in perfect health at the time of divorce.

I did my own case law research, as well as consult with several attorneys. Lifetime alimony in my case was a very real possibility if they pushed for it. In the end, 82% of my net income was ordered into her household, between child support, alimony and the van for a total of five years. Of that, the alimony award was 50% of my gross income, or $900 a month more than the statutory child support amount for three children. This decision was in line with my own research, and multiple attorney opinions in similar cases where the SAHM pushed forward going after everything she could get.


----------



## samyeagar

Here is an article discussing this issue that may be a bit more palatable for some because it also discusses women who have gotten screwed over by alimony laws...

Jail Becomes Home for Husband Stuck With Lifetime Alimony - Bloomberg Business


----------



## tech-novelist

samyeagar said:


> Here is an article discussing this issue that may be a bit more palatable for some because it also discusses women who have gotten screwed over by alimony laws...
> 
> Jail Becomes Home for Husband Stuck With Lifetime Alimony - Bloomberg Business


No, that would be an example of misogyny. Only men should be horribly mistreated (er, I mean treated properly) by alimony!


----------



## Shoto1984

I'm going to chime in even though I way late to this party. 

I have no problem with alimony where one spouse leaves a career to stay home with the kids. They should share in the fruits of the marriage relative to what they gave up on some scale that is takes into account the marital assets and the opportunity cost of having stayed home (the couple gave up a breadwinner not just the person who stayed home). That said, the expected return of a corporate executive and that of a customer service rep are quite different no matter what the breadwinner earned. 

Lastly, there are many situations where one person stays home and the kids go off to school. This can turn into a permanent vacation. The home body could be getting a degree or starting a business but instead fills days with social media, spa visits and shopping. In these cases I see no reason for alimony and maybe they actually owe the estate rather than the other way around.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> What is the court's reason for doing that, again?
> 
> And @Pluto2, are you a lawyer?


Because of the *feelings* of a man in a robe with a gavel.

That's the reasoning.


----------



## lexis

jld said:


> What is the court's reason for doing that, again?


There is often no rhyme or reasons to the decisions of a court.


----------



## Zanne

.


----------



## lexis

Nynaeve said:


> Alimony is rare.


No it isn't. 




Nynaeve said:


> Judges are aware that the non-custodial parent needs to pay rent so their children have a roof over their heads during visitation. They aren't going to foolishly enter an order that means the kids don't have a place to stay or food to eat when they visit.


It happens all the time.



Nynaeve said:


> It's also very rare for people to be jailed for failing to pay alimony.


No it isn't. It happens all the time.


----------



## samyeagar

Zanne said:


> ^^^This seems more realistic. I've been reading posts by all of these guys here and then I read this post and some of @EleGirl's posts and I wonder why there are so many discrepancies? I've also been reading online that lifetime alimony is rare now days.
> 
> OT: @Nynaeve... I love your name! Are you a WoT fan??


There aren't any discrepancies. What they have pointed out is true in the majority of case, and lifetime alimony is rare. The rarity argument can be perceived as a minimizing tactic, that it's not really a problem.

What I and others have pointed out is that it can and does happen. No matter how rare it is does nothing to fix it for those of us who have been affected by this. In my case, the only reason I did not get stuck with lifetime alimony is that I had $20,000 to fight it. The reason why many others don't get hit too badly is because, as evidenced by some of the women on this thread...is simply because alimony is not aggressively pursued.

Interestingly enough, my wife and I disagree pretty widely on this topic...


----------



## lexis

samyeagar said:


> What I and others have pointed out is that it can and does happen. No matter how rare it is does nothing to fix it for those of us who have been affected by this.


I'm in the medical field and we have a term for those so called "rare" conditions that maybe 100 people in the whole world are afflicted with.

"It's not rare if it's in your chair".


----------



## jld

samyeagar said:


> Interestingly enough, my wife and I disagree pretty widely on this topic...


How so?


----------



## EleGirl

lexis said:


> No it isn't.


Alimony is awarded in about 15% of divorces. And when it is awarded it is usually short term rehabilitative alimony. The average alimony payment is about $300.


----------



## anonmd

Average people have no money.


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> Alimony is awarded in about 15% of divorces. And when it is awarded it is usually short term rehabilitative alimony. The average alimony payment is about $300.


Ele, do you have a link to that information? I'd love to read up on it sometime.

I didn't see it on the first 2 pages of my Google results, so it's not like I'm digging real hard lol.

ETA: And another question, is that $300 payment weekly? Biweekly? Monthly? It'd be rather disingenuous to say the average payment is $300, if there are 4 payments a month... I know the last 3 articles I've read cited weekly payments, but they were all anecdotal--not statistics.


----------



## Acoa

Kivlor said:


> Ele, do you have a link to that information? I'd love to read up on it sometime.
> 
> I didn't see it on the first 2 pages of my Google results, so it's not like I'm digging real hard lol.
> 
> ETA: And another question, is that $300 payment weekly? Biweekly? Monthly? It'd be rather disingenuous to say the average payment is $300, if there are 4 payments a month... I know the last 3 articles I've read cited weekly payments, but they were all anecdotal--not statistics.


2010 IRS data shows 441k returns with alimony recieved, averaging a bit over $371 per week. I can't find a source for what percentage of divorces the person is granted alimony, but given the low number reporting to the IRS, Ele's data seems to fit. The amount was in line with what I thought, but I'm surprised by the low % of awards.


----------



## Kivlor

Acoa said:


> 2010 IRS data shows 441k returns with alimony recieved, averaging a bit over $371 per week. I can't find a source for what percentage of divorces the person is granted alimony, but given the low number reporting to the IRS, Ele's data seems to fit. The amount was in line with what I thought, but I'm surprised by the low % of awards.


could you drop (or PM) the link?

$371/week

*$19,292 /year* is the average alimony. That's a much more honest assessment than "The average alimony payment is about $300."

So, the average person paying alimony pays ~$20,000 per year to their former spouse. I wonder what the average alimony *order* is, since this is the average *collected*. 

I'd be interested in knowing not just the % of total divorces with alimony, but the % of contested divorces, or better yet the % of divorces where alimony was requested, compared to the % it was received. 

You don't get anything if you don't ask for it. And plenty of folks don't ask.


----------



## anonmd

20K a year is a lot on average when you consider there is likely child support as well + perhaps the family home has been appropriated for either a few years or until age of majority. On the other hand, there must be a bunch of daddy warbucks / Donald Trump style multi million awards mixed in there which could be driving the avg up.


----------



## Acoa

Kivlor said:


> could you drop (or PM) the link?
> 
> $371/week
> 
> *$19,292 /year* is the average alimony. That's a much more honest assessment than "The average alimony payment is about $300."
> 
> So, the average person paying alimony pays ~$20,000 per year to their former spouse. I wonder what the average alimony *order* is, since this is the average *collected*.
> 
> I'd be interested in knowing not just the % of total divorces with alimony, but the % of contested divorces, or better yet the % of divorces where alimony was requested, compared to the % it was received.
> 
> You don't get anything if you don't ask for it. And plenty of folks don't ask.


Here is the link, seems safe enough... https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12winbul.pdf 

it would be interesting to see more statistics, but difficult to quantify such data. So many differences by state in both lingo and laws.


----------



## Kivlor

Acoa said:


> Here is the link, seems safe enough... https://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-soi/12winbul.pdf
> 
> it would be interesting to see more statistics, but difficult to quantify such data. So many differences by state in both lingo and laws.


Thanks. Doing a little more math, the Median is ~$20,000/year. The mathematical average (total $/total payers) is ~$17,000/year. 

We don't have access to the data, so no way to provide a Mode (the "typical" or most common). I'm a fan of modes personally, but in their absence, I think Medians are pretty good. Half are above, half are below.

Now, if we figure the averages up against the Median individual income of $32,000... (for adults 25+)


----------



## anonmd

Kivlor said:


> Now, if we figure the averages up against the Median individual income of $32,000... (for adults 25+)



I wouldn't do that. Too pessimistic. Putting it against the avg family income may still be too pessimistic but closer.


----------



## Kivlor

anonmd said:


> I wouldn't do that. Too pessimistic. Putting it against the avg family income may still be too pessimistic but closer.


$51,900

Or roughly 37% of gross income. Then tack on CS.


----------



## anonmd

Sounds about right.


----------



## jdawg2015

As I've typed about before in such cases, what is failed to be mentioned is that often times alimony is avoided in many cases in lieu of a much higher amount of the house equity and retirement going to the payee as a way to avoid long term alimony.

In my case, technically my ex wife did not get alimony. But she got way more than have of my retirement and equity of the house.

She now has no mortgage on her place and has more money in her IRA than I do in my 401k. 

Alimony is NOT rare as you've stated. And the threat of life long alimony is often how a spouse is able to get a sweet deal as many try to avoid the long term aspect of paying their ex.

I would rather jump from a roof and be road kill than have to write my exW a check every month.

Even though we both worked, because my income was much higher than her I had to pay spousal support. And with 20+ years it was considered a long term marriage.




samyeagar said:


> There aren't any discrepancies. What they have pointed out is true in the majority of case, and lifetime alimony is rare. The rarity argument can be perceived as a minimizing tactic, that it's not really a problem.
> 
> What I and others have pointed out is that it can and does happen. No matter how rare it is does nothing to fix it for those of us who have been affected by this. In my case, the only reason I did not get stuck with lifetime alimony is that I had $20,000 to fight it. The reason why many others don't get hit too badly is because, as evidenced by some of the women on this thread...is simply because alimony is not aggressively pursued.
> 
> Interestingly enough, my wife and I disagree pretty widely on this topic...


----------



## Kivlor

jdawg2015 said:


> As I've typed about before in such cases, what is failed to be mentioned is that often times alimony is avoided in many cases in lieu of a much higher amount of the house equity and retirement going to the payee as a way to avoid long term alimony.
> 
> In my case, technically my ex wife did not get alimony. But she got way more than have of my retirement and equity of the house.
> 
> She now has no mortgage on her place and has more money in her IRA than I do in my 401k.
> 
> Alimony is NOT rare as you've stated. And the threat of life long alimony is often how a spouse is able to get a sweet deal as many try to avoid the long term aspect of paying their ex.
> 
> I would rather jump from a roof and be road kill than have to write my exW a check every month.
> 
> Even though we both worked, because my income was much higher than her I had to pay spousal support. And with 20+ years it was considered a long term marriage.


We call this Bargaining in the Shadow of the Law. 

If we take into account all of the cases where a spouse received special settlement in-lieu of weekly or monthly payments, well that changes the percentage quite a bit.

But those who are trying to downplay alimony don't want to discuss that part of it here, I think.


----------



## jdawg2015

It's because many spouses end up giving up a larger portion of marital assets in lieu of alimony.

The idea that "alimony" is not that common is a myth. In long term marriages (depends on the State you live), the higher earning spouse can mostly like expect to have to pay more somewhere.

I even had to eat the lawyers fees in my divorce on top of giving her a much higher share of the assets. It was that or alimony which was held over my head.



Acoa said:


> 2010 IRS data shows 441k returns with alimony recieved, averaging a bit over $371 per week. I can't find a source for what percentage of divorces the person is granted alimony, but given the low number reporting to the IRS, Ele's data seems to fit. The amount was in line with what I thought, but I'm surprised by the low % of awards.


----------



## Erudite

jdawg2015 said:


> It's because many spouses end up giving up a larger portion of marital assets in lieu of alimony.
> 
> The idea that "alimony" is not that common is a myth. In long term marriages (depends on the State you live), the higher earning spouse can mostly like expect to have to pay more somewhere.
> 
> I even had to eat the lawyers fees in my divorce on top of giving her a much higher share of the assets. It was that or alimony which was held over my head.


I just finished filed for divorce. I offered to file jointly with H, without asking for alimony, and he refused. When I filed individually I asks for it anyway. There will be no higher percentage of marital assets as the house is in foreclosure and the cars are essentially worthless. No savings or 401ks. Nothing..after 16 years years of marriage we have nothing of value to our names. That was a direct result of his poor decisions and my being a sahm for so long. Now he is unemployed and I am working. He still makes more in unemployment than I do working. Our accounts are now separate and I have no money for even rent or first months deposit. So, yes, I asked for alimony and child support and sole use and of the family home because I know there is nothing else for me but a shelter. Maybe I will not be awarded anything since I am employed and he is not but I would be downright negligent to not ask.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jdawg2015

you had 16 years that you could have worked or worked out the finances. If you had tough financial situation you should have chosen to get back into the work force. SAHM was a CHOICE. 

Laying this all at your husbands feet and claiming victim hood I have no sympathy.

Marriage should never be a guarantee of life long income.

I am always amazed how people remain SAHM/D even when the kids are at school. That time could have been used to get more education and get ahead. But most don't and enjoy the lifestyle. 




Erudite said:


> jdawg2015 said:
> 
> 
> 
> It's because many spouses end up giving up a larger portion of marital assets in lieu of alimony.
> 
> The idea that "alimony" is not that common is a myth. In long term marriages (depends on the State you live), the higher earning spouse can mostly like expect to have to pay more somewhere.
> 
> I even had to eat the lawyers fees in my divorce on top of giving her a much higher share of the assets. It was that or alimony which was held over my head.
> 
> 
> 
> I just finished filed for divorce. I offered to file jointly with H, without asking for alimony, and he refused. When I filed individually I asks for it anyway. There will be no higher percentage of marital assets as the house is in foreclosure and the cars are essentially worthless. No savings or 401ks. Nothing..after 16 years years of marriage we have nothing of value to our names. That was a direct result of his poor decisions and my being a sahm for so long. Now he is unemployed and I am working. He still makes more in unemployment than I do working. Our accounts are now separate and I have no money for even rent or first months deposit. So, yes, I asked for alimony and child support and sole use and of the family home because I know there is nothing else for me but a shelter. Maybe I will not be awarded anything since I am employed and he is not but I would be downright negligent to not ask.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_
Click to expand...


----------



## Duguesclin

Erudite said:


> I just finished filed for divorce. I offered to file jointly with H, without asking for alimony, and he refused. When I filed individually I asks for it anyway. There will be no higher percentage of marital assets as the house is in foreclosure and the cars are essentially worthless. No savings or 401ks. Nothing..after 16 years years of marriage we have nothing of value to our names. That was a direct result of his poor decisions and my being a sahm for so long. Now he is unemployed and I am working. He still makes more in unemployment than I do working. Our accounts are now separate and I have no money for even rent or first months deposit. So, yes, I asked for alimony and child support and sole use and of the family home because I know there is nothing else for me but a shelter. Maybe I will not be awarded anything since I am employed and he is not but I would be downright negligent to not ask.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Well Erudite, you have my sympathy. I am sorry you are going through this hardship right now.

I know your children greatly benefited from you staying at home.


----------



## Erudite

jdawg2015 said:


> you had 16 years that you could have worked or worked out the finances. If you had tough financial situation you should have chosen to get back into the work force. SAHM was a CHOICE.
> 
> Laying this all at your husbands feet and claiming victim hood I have no sympathy.
> 
> Marriage should never be a guarantee of life long income.
> 
> I am always amazed how people remain SAHM/D even when the kids are at school. That time could have been used to get more education and get ahead. But most don't and enjoy the lifestyle.


It was a choice that WE made together. He and I. He knew, as well as I did, what kind of sacrifices that would be needed for me to stay home. When I finally did put the children in school and get a job it exacerbated the problems in our marriage tenfold. I now had to have transportation to and from work. Which meant we had to have two cars because he was unwilling to go without transportation (as I had done for years) We had to pay for child care for our youngest. Our eldest had to go to public school (because my H would not school him) which meant none of his help around the house etc etc When the roles were reversed and H was home and I was working he couldn't handle it. I was not a "victim" of the choice to stay home. I am no different than any other spouse in a divorce. We made a choice together for me to stay home. End of story there. 

Secondly, let's be realistic. I work a low paying job, for obvious reasons. Even assuming I get anything from my unemployed STBX I will still have to count on government assistance to make ends meet. I am not going to be living the high life off the fruits of his labor (I mentioned he's unemployed right?) Any assistance whether it be spousal or child support will obviously go to my children. Money that goes to me in whatever manner will obviously be given to them.

Thirdly I was willing to go without alimony if it meant a quick clean divorce with minimal hassle over child support. He refused to file jointly and refuses any compromises I set forth. I am not allowed to sell "his stuff" although technically half of it is mine. I really have limited options. I am am in a position where any money I may get is needed desperately. It's not a victim thing. It's a reality thing. I have children to think about.


----------



## Erudite

Duguesclin said:


> Well Erudite, you have my sympathy. I am sorry you are going through this hardship right now.
> 
> I know your children greatly benefited from you staying at home.


I hope so. My eldest is a teen and he is having a rough time now. He hates that I went back to work and he had to go to public. He believes it is all my fault. When he was born the decision to stay home was a no brainer financially as well as emotionally....now...*shrug*


----------



## jld

Erudite said:


> I hope so. My eldest is a teen and he is having a rough time now. He hates that I went back to work and he had to go to public. He believes it is all my fault. When he was born the decision to stay home was a no brainer financially as well as emotionally....now...*shrug*


How old is he?


----------



## jld

I asked his specific age because he might be able to homeschool himself while you are working. 

There are self-teaching materials available. You would need to feel comfortable with his staying home alone all day. The older the teen, the more comfortable a parent may be likely to feel with that.


----------



## Erudite

jld said:


> How old is he?


I don't like giving specifics but he is, as I said, a teen. I home schooled him for most of his life so I wasn't sitting home doing nothing. He is an honors student now so I must have done something right all these years. Much of what he says to me are words right out of his father's mouth. It's incredibly frustrating.


----------



## Erudite

jld said:


> I asked his specific age because he might be able to homeschool himself while you are working.
> 
> There are self-teaching materials available. You would need to feel comfortable with his staying home alone all day. The older the teen, the more comfortable a parent may be likely to feel with that.


If only I could. If he could go to a co-op I might consider it. Right now though he would be home alone with his Dad and they would play video games all day together.


----------



## jld

Erudite said:


> I don't like giving specifics but he is, as I said, a teen. I home schooled him for most of his life so I wasn't sitting home doing nothing. He is an honors student now so I must have done something right all these years. Much of what he says to me are words right out of his father's mouth. It's incredibly frustrating.


I bet it is. I am so sorry to hear that, Erudite.

And I am not surprised he is an honors student. Good job, Mom!


----------



## jld

Erudite said:


> If only I could. If he could go to a co-op I might consider it. Right now though he would be home alone with his Dad and they would play video games all day together.


It sounds like his father is already a negative influence. He does not need even more of that.

Again, so sorry you are in this situation, Erudite.


----------



## Erudite

jld said:


> I bet it is. I am so sorry to hear that, Erudite.
> 
> And I am not surprised he is an honors student. Good job, Mom!


Thank you!!!!!


----------



## Erudite

jld said:


> It sounds like his father is already a negative influence. He does not need even more of that.
> 
> Again, so sorry you are in this situation, Erudite.


Thank you, again. It is what it is. I cry a lot. The children see it. But I get up and go to work anyway. What else is there to do but to leave it in God's hands?

I see that a lot of the men on here feel only short term alimony is needed. To be truthful I would be fine with alimony until the kids turn eighteen.


----------



## jld

Erudite said:


> Thank you, again. It is what it is. I cry a lot. The children see it. But I get up and go to work anyway. What else is there to do but to leave it in God's hands?
> 
> I see that a lot of the men on here feel only short term alimony is needed. To be truthful I would be fine with alimony until the kids turn eighteen.


Please do not let the opinions of people who may not realize nor fully appreciate your investment in your family shortchange you, Erudite. 

To the extent you can be, legally, be honest with your children about why you are crying. I think honesty will build trust between you and your kids. And trust in you can prevent their being overly negatively influenced by their dad.


----------



## Erudite

jld said:


> Please do not let the opinions of people who may not realize nor fully appreciate your investment in your family shortchange you, Erudite.
> 
> To the extent you can be, legally, be honest with your children about why you are crying. I think honesty will build trust between you and your kids. And trust in you can prevent their being overly negatively influenced by their dad.


You are very kind. My eldest knows why. He understands. But he is also a teen and he loves his Dad. He feels conflicted and I don't blame him.

As to being short changed....well as I said it is what it is. I would give anything to deal as minimally as possible with their father. ff I didn't NEED alimony I wouldn't ask. He has told me more than once that he would rather live out of his truck than pay alimony. He is definitely the type who would lower the standards of his own life and kids to stick it to me and lay the blame at my feet. I can only hope the courts see through this.


----------



## jld

Erudite said:


> You are very kind. My eldest knows why. He understands. But he is also a teen and he loves his Dad. He feels conflicted and I don't blame him.
> 
> As to being short changed....well as I said it is what it is. I would give anything to deal as minimally as possible with their father. ff I didn't NEED alimony I wouldn't ask. He has told me more than once that he would rather live out of his truck than pay alimony. He is definitely the type who would lower the standards of his own life and kids to stick it to me and lay the blame at my feet. I can only hope the courts see through this.


I sure hope so, too, Erudite. It really seems to depend on the judge. Some are very pro-dad, no matter his behavior. It seems to stem from MRA (men's rights activist) influence. 

I have not checked to see if you have a thread explaining your situation. It sounds like he is an abuser, though. From what I have read, men like that want to control women, and can be particularly nasty in court. 

Hoping you get a wise judge . . .


----------



## Erudite

jld said:


> I sure hope so, too, Erudite. It really seems to depend on the judge. Some are very pro-dad, no matter his behavior. It seems to stem from MRA (men's rights activist) influence.
> 
> I have not checked to see if you have a thread explaining your situation. It sounds like he is an abuser, though. From what I have read, men like that want to control women, and can be particularly nasty in court.
> 
> Hoping you get a wise judge . . .


Me too. My H also likes to be the noble gallant hero in front of other people. One minute he would threaten to take my oldest away from me in a split then he would say I will love you and take care of you even if you think we would be better apart. A lot depends on which man shows up in court. *sigh*
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Erudite said:


> Me too. My H also likes to be the noble gallant hero in front of other people. One minute he would threaten to take my oldest away from me in a split then he would say I will love you and take care of you even if you think we would be better apart. A lot depends on which man shows up in court. *sigh*
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I can imagine how frustrating that would be. It is part of his immature, abusive nature.

Erudite, do you have any possibility of getting some training or further education to be able to get a better job?


----------



## Erudite

jld said:


> I can imagine how frustrating that would be. It is part of his immature, abusive nature.
> 
> Erudite, do you have any possibility of getting some training or further education to be able to get a better job?


Maybe. I do have a thread that explains my marriage. I don't want to derail the thread. I just get the feeling that men think women use alimony as a weapon to hurt them. In my case it is a necessary evil. I don't think I am owed anything from my H but do think he is responsible to the kids. I am not asking to maintain this lifestyle of leisure. I am working and will continue to do so. I just don't want my kids to be homeless. The fear of homelessness has kept me trapped for so long...
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Erudite said:


> Maybe. I do have a thread that explains my marriage. I don't want to derail the thread. I just get the feeling that men think women use alimony as a weapon to hurt them. In my case it is a necessary evil. I don't think I am owed anything from my H but do think he is responsible to the kids. I am not asking to maintain this lifestyle of leisure. I am working and will continue to do so. I just don't want my kids to be homeless. The fear of homelessness has kept me trapped for so long...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I will post to you over there. But alimony is a return on your investment in him, not any kind of evil.


----------



## Kivlor

Erudite said:


> Maybe. I do have a thread that explains my marriage. I don't want to derail the thread. I just get the feeling that men think women use alimony as a weapon to hurt them. In my case it is a necessary evil. I don't think I am owed anything from my H but do think he is responsible to the kids. I am not asking to maintain this lifestyle of leisure. I am working and will continue to do so. I just don't want my kids to be homeless. The fear of homelessness has kept me trapped for so long...
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


Alimony isn't given to divorced spouses for the sake of the children. That is called Child Support.


----------



## michzz

Getting back to the OP's question.

I believe in a short-term rehabilitative alimony for a stay at home spouse in the event of a divorce.

I also believe that there should be no alimony for anyone that cheats. This no fault divorce rule is crap.

My ex-wife cheated for many years and sucked out resources by not fully working at her realtor job while she cheated. Plus, she infected me with HPV, which resulted in throat cancer many years later.

But I have to pay her a fortune since she was my wife for decades. The world is unfair, I get that. But this situation can be remedied by outlawing alimony.

Let's flip the default situation. Make it that you have to have a prenup to agree to alimony being paid in the event of divorce.


----------



## Shoto1984

jld said:


> But alimony is a return on your investment in him, not any kind of evil.


Investment in him? I'd really like to hear more on this concept...


----------



## jld

Shoto1984 said:


> Investment in him? I'd really like to hear more on this concept...


We talked about it earlier in the thread. I gave up my job and moved around the world with my husband to advance his career. We both see that as my having invested in him. He has no issue with lifetime alimony.


----------



## Shoto1984

michzz said:


> I also believe that there should be no alimony for anyone that cheats. This no fault divorce rule is crap.


I couldn't agree more. If you violate a contract there should be negative implications. If you violate a contract that negatively affects minors there should be greater negative implication. No fault only encourages the POS to do their worst.


----------



## Shoto1984

jld said:


> We talked about it earlier in the thread. I gave up my job and moved around the world with my husband to advance his career. We both see that as my having invested in him. He has no issue with lifetime alimony.


Maybe its a semantic difference but I only see an opportunity cost. You did you what you did because you wanted to. You were an adult and my life choices. He would have been able to make the same moves with or without you. In fact it might be true that he might have made more moves if you weren't in he picture. Note the "he/she" part of this is meaningless. The same should hold true for a man who gives up his job and moves with his wife.


----------



## jld

Shoto1984 said:


> Maybe its a semantic difference but I only see an opportunity cost. You did you what you did because you wanted to. You were an adult and my life choices. He would have been able to make the same moves with or without you. In fact it might be true that he might have made more moves if you weren't in he picture. Note the "he/she" part of this is meaningless. The same should hold true for a man who gives up his job and moves with his wife.


He wanted a family, breastfed and homeschooled, and wanted it with me. He wanted all of us with hm when he was transferred abroad. 

Fortunately he sees all this the same way I do, and would pay even if the law did not require it. He respects my contribution to the family.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## soccermom2three

Shoto1984 said:


> Maybe its a semantic difference but I only see an opportunity cost. You did you what you did because you wanted to. You were an adult and my life choices. He would have been able to make the same moves with or without you. In fact it might be true that he might have made more moves if you weren't in he picture. Note the "he/she" part of this is meaningless. The same should hold true for a man who gives up his job and moves with his wife.



You are making the assumption that Dug hasn't also made a life choice that his wife stay home and raise their children.


----------



## Shoto1984

I'm not taking a position against alimony. As I outlined earlier in the thread, I think its very situational and many factors should be considered that aren't (yet). I am assuming that a couple makes life choices together and that one is not incurring an ever increasing debt to the other because they made a choice together. Calling your time with someone an "investment" suggests to me that you are expecting a "return" If at some point the "return" equates to money then the only justification I can see is the opportunity cost that was incurred in not doing something you otherwise were likely to do. Of course in having done that "likely" thing you would not have had the experience of....(world travel, quality time with your children, lazy days by the pool, time to spend with a dying parent...insert whatever) So what is that worth? How do you balance the value of the life you choose with the value of the life you might have had? Is it possible that time with your children is worth more than time building a career? If you walk away from a spouse what about her/his "investment" in you? Hmmmmm.


----------



## Duguesclin

michzz said:


> I also believe that there should be no alimony for anyone that cheats. This no fault divorce rule is crap.


I am trying to understand your logic. So if a guy cheats on his stay at home wife and they divorce, he should pay alimony and some more for the rest of his life?


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> I am trying to understand your logic. So if a guy cheats on his stay at home wife and they divorce, he should pay alimony and some more for the rest of his life?


I thought the last statement in his post was pretty clear, but I could be wrong. Seemed like "No alimony, unless you both agreed at the outset, or if someone violates the marital contract"



michzz said:


> Let's flip the default situation. Make it that you have to have a prenup to agree to alimony being paid in the event of divorce.


----------



## bfree

I hear a lot being discussed about alimony when there are children involved. What if there aren't any children and the wife or husband has not worked for the entirety of the marriage? Should there be any alimony? Should it be long term or short term? In thinking about it one cannot say something like "he/she didn't want me to work so I stayed home." A judge cannot know who made the decision that one spouse would stay home and why. What if the wife had a good job and the husband refused to work even if she disagreed with his decision. What if the husband made plenty of money and wanted his wife home taking care of the house and having dinner ready every night. A judge won't know these circumstances and frankly wouldn't care. So what about in these cases?


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> I thought the last statement in his post was pretty clear, but I could be wrong. Seemed like "No alimony, unless you both agreed at the outset, *or if someone violates the marital contract"*


As most stay at home parents are women, so if she cheats she is screwed, but if he cheats he has no consequences.

Seems to me to be a rule designed by men for men.


----------



## Duguesclin

bfree said:


> I hear a lot being discussed about alimony when there are children involved. What if there aren't any children and the wife or husband has not worked for the entirety of the marriage? Should there be any alimony? Should it be long term or short term? In thinking about it one cannot say something like "he/she didn't want me to work so I stayed home." A judge cannot know who made the decision that one spouse would stay home and why. What if the wife had a good job and the husband refused to work even if she disagreed with his decision. What if the husband made plenty of money and wanted his wife home taking care of the house and having dinner ready every night. A judge won't know these circumstances and frankly wouldn't care. So what about in these cases?


I agree, it should be irrespective of whether or not there are children.


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> As most stay at home parents are women, so if she cheats she is screwed, but if he cheats he has no consequences.
> 
> Seems to me to be a rule designed by men for men.


Actually, you're missing a step here. If the base is 50/50 no alimony unless you both agreed or someone cheats, then:

If SAHP cheats, they lose nothing. Because there was no Alimony on the table.

If Working Parent cheats, they pay extra on top of their 50%.

It's more fair to the women than the men.


----------



## Kivlor

bfree said:


> I hear a lot being discussed about alimony when there are children involved. What if there aren't any children and the wife or husband has not worked for the entirety of the marriage? Should there be any alimony? Should it be long term or short term? In thinking about it one cannot say something like "he/she didn't want me to work so I stayed home." A judge cannot know who made the decision that one spouse would stay home and why. What if the wife had a good job and the husband refused to work even if she disagreed with his decision. What if the husband made plenty of money and wanted his wife home taking care of the house and having dinner ready every night. A judge won't know these circumstances and frankly wouldn't care. So what about in these cases?


Alimony is not intended for the children. It is for the divorced spouse so they can continue the "same comfort / lifestyle they were accustomed to in the M". Money taken from one spouse "for the children" is called child support, and can be charged concurrently with Alimony. 

Arguments of how Alimony is "for the children" are fallacious, and are appeals to emotion.


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> Actually, you're missing a step here. If the base is 50/50 no alimony unless you both agreed or someone cheats, then:
> 
> If SAHP cheats, they lose nothing. Because there was no Alimony on the table.
> 
> If Working Parent cheats, they pay extra on top of their 50%.
> 
> *It's more fair to the women than the men*.


I never realized that you were thinking of giving an advantage to women.


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> I never realized that you were thinking of giving an advantage to women.


It would be less unfair to men than the current system. The steps to egalitarianism are going to have to be done 1 at a time, not all in one leap.

Despite what some may think, those of us opposed to alimony don't hate women. We just think it is unjust.


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> It would be less unfair to men than the current system. The steps to egalitarianism are going to have to be done 1 at a time, not all in one leap.
> 
> Despite what some may think, those of us opposed to alimony don't hate women. We just think it is unjust.


I disagree. Alimony has its place in our society. I find great value in a stay at home mom. 

Alimony is a great tool to ensure more women are willing to take the risk to stay home and raise their kids.


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> I disagree. Alimony has its place in our society. I find great value in a stay at home mom.
> 
> Alimony is a great tool to ensure more women are willing to take the risk to stay home and raise their kids.


I beg to differ. It's a great tool to encourage women divorce as soon as the going gets tough. It discourages a woman keeping her marital vows. Especially in the current no-fault system.

What incentive does she have to stay, when she can take half of everything, plus payments for years (or lifetime in my state). She's encouraged to stay just long enough to make money, then find someone else. 

Not saying all women do this. Just that this is where the incentives lay.

ETA: I find great value in SAHPs. I've been quite clear on that in this thread, and in many others. It doesn't change my position on alimony.


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> I beg to differ. It's a great tool to encourage women divorce as soon as the going gets tough. It discourages a woman keeping her marital vows. Especially in the current no-fault system.
> 
> What incentive does she have to stay, when she can take half of everything, plus payments for years (or lifetime in my state). She's encouraged to stay just long enough to make money, then find someone else.
> 
> Not saying all women do this. Just that this is where the incentives lay.
> 
> ETA: I find great value in SAHPs. I've been quite clear on that in this thread, and in many others. It doesn't change my position on alimony.


What value do you put in a stay at home wife if you are not willing to protect her when the marriage goes bad?


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> What value do you put in a stay at home wife if you are not willing to protect her when the marriage goes bad?


If she's no longer my wife, she's no longer entitled to my protection. She's ended her duty to me, and with that, ended my duty to her.

As long as she is my wife she'll have my protection. And she is entitled to it, as it is my duty as her H.


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> If she's no longer my wife, she's no longer entitled to my protection. She's ended her duty to me, and with that, ended my duty to her.
> 
> As long as she is my wife she'll have my protection. And she is entitled to it, as it is my duty as her H.


So, if the marriage fails, it is because of her.


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> So, if the marriage fails, it is because of her.


I don't believe in Divorce Dug except in the case of a complete violation of marital vows. When I make an oath, I take it very seriously.

So yes; in short. It would be because of her. 

Also, even if I wasn't like I am, ~70% of divorces are filed by the woman. So it's in her hands most likely, not mine.

ETA: So, as long as she continues to be my W, and keeps her vows, then I will continue to keep my vows, to provide, protect, honor, love, cherish, etc till death do us part.


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> I don't believe in Divorce Dug except in the case of a complete violation of marital vows. When I make an oath, I take it very seriously.
> 
> So yes; in short. It would be because of her.
> 
> Also, even if I wasn't like I am, ~70% of divorces are filed by the woman. So it's in her hands most likely, not mine.
> 
> ETA: So, as long as she continues to be my W, and keeps her vows, then I will continue to keep my vows, to provide, protect, honor, love, cherish, etc till death do us part.


It is her word against yours. As long as you feel that you provide, protect, honor, love, cherish, etc.., you are meeting your vows, even if she disagrees.

When I read this, I understand why 70% of women file for divorce.


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> It is her word against yours. As long as you feel that you provide, protect, honor, love, cherish, etc.., you are meeting your vows, even if she disagrees.
> 
> When I read this, I understand why 70% of women file for divorce.


She can voice how she feels I'm falling short and what needs to be done to make it better. I would voice my concerns if I felt she wasn't honoring her end of the agreement Dug.


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> She can voice how she feels I'm falling short and what needs to be done to make it better. I would voice my concerns if I felt she wasn't honoring her end of the agreement Dug.


The feeling I am getting is that you think you are a straight shooter and you cannot be the cause of a divorce. I am ready to bet that many of the husbands from those 70% ladies filing for divorce are feeling the same way.


----------



## Erudite

I can tell you that I invested in my marriage. Maybe I did not work but I knew how to stretch a dollar. I never bought anything for myself. Bought second hand where ever and whenever I could. Shopped sales. Couponed. Did all of the house and yard maintenance so as not to hire out. Chain sawed and split wood to supplement fuel. Never took vacations rarely went out with the kids. Never any expensive date nights. Often going months to a year with no vehicle so as to avoid costly repairs or payments. Yet somehow we never had much money even though my H averaged 70k per year. When he was working that is. He had 10 plus jobs over the course of our marriage with long stretches of unemployment. So I invests time in him. Worked his resumes. Job searched for him. Put together interview clothes. Watched as he spent thousands on the latest IT certification that was sure to raise his salary and then watched him quit a job when the expected pay increase never came. I stayed home with the kids and saved thousands on child care. I contributed more financial to this marriage than many would think by selling items on eBay and CL. And when I did what all the men here finally sis and got a job things got WORSE. This thought that women don't invest or appreciate the husband's contribution is bogus. Not to mention that when he decide to have his own company I researched the SBA, created websites, made business cards and other marketing materials etc etc
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Duguesclin

Erudite said:


> I can tell you that I invested in my marriage. Maybe I did not work but I knew how to stretch a dollar. I never bought anything for myself. Bought second hand where ever and whenever I could. Shopped sales. Couponed. Did all of the house and yard maintenance so as not to hire out. Chain sawed and split wood to supplement fuel. Never took vacations rarely went out with the kids. Never any expensive date nights. Often going months to a year with no vehicle so as to avoid costly repairs or payments. Yet somehow we never had much money even though my H averaged 70k per year. When he was working that is. He had 10 plus jobs over the course of our marriage with long stretches of unemployment. So I invests time in him. Worked his resumes. Job searched for him. Put together interview clothes. Watched as he spent thousands on the latest IT certification that was sure to raise his salary and then watched him quit a job when the expected pay increase never came. I stayed home with the kids and saved thousands on child care. I contributed more financial to this marriage than many would think by selling items on eBay and CL. And when I did what all the men here finally sis and got a job things got WORSE. This thought that women don't invest or appreciate the husband's contribution is bogus. Not to mention that when he decide to have his own company I researched the SBA, created websites, made business cards and other marketing materials etc etc
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I am so sorry your husband let you down.

This is why alimony is so necessary


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> The feeling I am getting is that you think you are a straight shooter and you cannot be the cause of a divorce. I am ready to bet that many of the husbands from those 70% ladies filing for divorce are feeling the same way.


Could I be the cause? Yes. If I neglect my role and duties, stop communicating, or if I seek fulfillment outside of my marriage. Those are choices we all have every day and should try to be mindful of. Will I be? No. Because I choose not to. And because I choose vigilance.

But we're going OT here... If a man's W leaves him, why does he have a responsibility to continue to provide for her, to protect her, to care for her? The nature of Divorce is to separate completely. 

Alimony isn't divorce, because it is not separation; it is _childcare_. By nature it relegates the receiving spouse to a juvenile, who cannot care for themselves.


----------



## Kivlor

Erudite said:


> I can tell you that I invested in my marriage. Maybe I did not work but I knew how to stretch a dollar. I never bought anything for myself. Bought second hand where ever and whenever I could. Shopped sales. Couponed. Did all of the house and yard maintenance so as not to hire out. Chain sawed and split wood to supplement fuel. Never took vacations rarely went out with the kids. Never any expensive date nights. Often going months to a year with no vehicle so as to avoid costly repairs or payments. Yet somehow we never had much money even though my H averaged 70k per year. When he was working that is. He had 10 plus jobs over the course of our marriage with long stretches of unemployment. So I invests time in him. Worked his resumes. Job searched for him. Put together interview clothes. Watched as he spent thousands on the latest IT certification that was sure to raise his salary and then watched him quit a job when the expected pay increase never came. I stayed home with the kids and saved thousands on child care. I contributed more financial to this marriage than many would think by selling items on eBay and CL. And when I did what all the men here finally sis and got a job things got WORSE. This thought that women don't invest or appreciate the husband's contribution is bogus. Not to mention that when he decide to have his own company I researched the SBA, created websites, made business cards and other marketing materials etc etc
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I don't question whether or not a SAHP has contributed to their M. Obviously they have. Just as the Working Parent has. I do not place either spouse's "investment" as higher than the other, I think they are equitable. As such, half to each spouse. No alimony. At least as long as we have "no-fault" divorce.

The working spouse has foregone time with their children, and devoted income to their household. The SAHS has contributed their own efforts as well. Is the SAHS's contribution to the family somehow more valuable than the Working Spouse's contribution?


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> Could I be the cause? Yes. If I neglect my role and duties, stop communicating, or if I seek fulfillment outside of my marriage. Those are choices we all have every day and should try to be mindful of. Will I be? No. Because I choose not to. And because I choose vigilance.
> 
> But we're going OT here... If a man's W leaves him, why does he have a responsibility to continue to provide for her, to protect her, to care for her? The nature of Divorce is to separate completely.
> 
> Alimony isn't divorce, because it is not separation; it is _childcare_. By nature it relegates the receiving spouse to a juvenile, who cannot care for themselves.


Is a retired person receiving pension money from a company he/she worked for many years ago like childcare? Of course not.

A stay at home mom who contributed to the marriage should receive compensation for that time, just like an employee in a company.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> I don't question whether or not a SAHP has contributed to their M. Obviously they have. Just as the Working Parent has. I do not place either spouse's "investment" as higher than the other, I think they are equitable. As such, half to each spouse. No alimony. At least as long as we have "no-fault" divorce.
> 
> The working spouse has foregone time with their children, and devoted income to their household. The SAHS has contributed their own efforts as well. Is the SAHS's contribution to the family somehow more valuable than the Working Spouse's contribution?


It takes money to live. The working spouse is not going to lose the experience they have gotten over the years. The sahp never got that experience to start with, much less to draw on later.

Kivlor, you are 40 and never married, correct?


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> Is a retired person receiving pension money from a company he/she worked for many years ago like childcare? Of course not.
> 
> A stay at home mom who contributed to the marriage should receive compensation for that time, just like an employee in a company.


Is a Marriage a pension plan? Is one spouse the "company" and the other the "employee". I'd love to see that played out in a courtroom Dug. To receive a pension, don't you have to not only work for the company, but put in a % of income to receive your pension? And isn't a pension a contract between the employer and the employee? Can the spouse looking to receive alimony locate the "pension" clause / agreement of their marriage?

A company can file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and void their pension obligations. Bankruptcy does not affect alimony. Just like child support.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> Is a Marriage a pension plan? Is one spouse the "company" and the other the "employee". I'd love to see that played out in a courtroom Dug. To receive a pension, don't you have to not only work for the company, but put in a % of income to receive your pension? And isn't a pension a contract between the employer and the employee? Can the spouse looking to receive alimony locate the "pension" clause / agreement of their marriage?
> 
> A company can file Chapter 11 bankruptcy and void their pension obligations. Bankruptcy does not affect alimony. Just like child support.


Yes, I think marriage is a pension plan. I think the family is a pension plan.

Dug and I are not just about ourselves. We are about our family. 

Dug wanted a sahm because he thought it was an investment in his children. And children are an investment in the future. Our own personal future, too.


----------



## bfree

Duguesclin said:


> Is a retired person receiving pension money from a company he/she worked for many years ago like childcare? Of course not.
> 
> A stay at home mom who contributed to the marriage should receive compensation for that time, just like an employee in a company.


This analogy doesn't work because when an employee retires the company doesn't dissolve like a marriage after divorce.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> It takes money to live. The working spouse is not going to lose the experience they have gotten over the years. The sahp never got that experience to start with, much less to draw on later.
> 
> Kivlor, you are 40 and never married, correct?


The SAHP instead got time with the children. Time that money cannot purchase back JLD. It's a trade. It was an agreement entered into willingly. No one forced them.


HA! Much younger. But go on JLD, take your little personal jabs at people; it shows your arguments have nothing to stand on.

Me, I'll be in my yard again tomorrow, zooming around with my cape on. :wink2:


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> Yes, I think marriage is a pension plan. I think the family is a pension plan.
> 
> Dug and I are not just about ourselves. We are about our family.
> 
> Dug wanted a sahm because he thought it was an investment in his children. And children are an investment in the future. Our own personal future, too.


You imply that I am just for myself, and not about family. Which is an unfounded statement. This is your typical modus operandi when you've run out of room to wiggle. Attack the person, not their argument.


----------



## jld

bfree said:


> This analogy doesn't work because when an employee retires the company doesn't dissolve like a marriage after divorce.


The needs of the SAHM do not stop after a divorce. It is incredibly selfish and simply immoral to take the fertile years of a woman's life, watch her raise your children, freeing you up to devote yourself to your career, and then think you can leave her to fend for herself 20 or 30 years later, regardless of your justification for doing so.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> The SAHP instead got time with the children. Time that money cannot purchase back JLD. It's a trade. It was an agreement entered into willingly. No one forced them.
> 
> 
> HA! Much younger. But go on JLD, take your little personal jabs at people; it shows your arguments have nothing to stand on.
> 
> Me, I'll be in my yard again tomorrow, zooming around with my cape on. :wink2:


Don't look for things that are not there, kivlor. My point is that marriage and parenthood can look different before you are actually in them.

Again, we all need money to live. Mothers and children cannot survive on just their mutual love.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> You imply that I am just for myself, and not about family. Which is an unfounded statement. This is your typical modus operandi when you've run out of room to wiggle. Attack the person, not their argument.


The only ad hominem attack in there is in your imagination. I am simply explaining our position.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Shoto1984

Kivlor said:


> The SAHP instead got time with the children. Time that money cannot purchase back JLD. It's a trade. It was an agreement entered into willingly. No one forced them.


I came back to add just this point to my previous statement. I so would have liked to be the one who got to stay home with my kids. Me working was the practical choice for us but if she had had the earnings I would have jumped at the chance to be with my kids that much in those early years. How do I get compensated for my investment?


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Duguesclin said:


> I disagree. Alimony has its place in our society. I find great value in a stay at home mom.
> 
> Alimony is a great tool to ensure more women are willing to take the risk to stay home and raise their kids.


I appreciate how you think .. really I do -cause I am mostly just a Stay at Home.. ..

I see it this way... just as YOU would step up & provide alimony even if the law did not require it... because you feel so strongly... So honorable.... Love that.. 

From my end.. this is how I feel... and strongly.. if I cheated on a good man.. I don't deserve Sh** ... I can see both sides.. there should be consequences for our actions.. if a Stay at home has another dude.. let him take care of her - from then on... that's my reasoning... 

When I hear of these cases where the wife was cheating while the Man was at work (if he was a good man that is) .. then he has to pay for HER..and she's shacking up with her lover... eating high off the hog.. the injustice of this makes my blood boil...God forbid if this ever happened to one of our sons!

BUt that's just me.. We all have our views.. didn't ask my husband how he'd feel if He found out I was cheating.. then more $$ of out of his paycheck after the divorce... he's a pretty nice guy.. but I do think he'd spit on that one .


----------



## sillysophie

I think it depends on the circumstances. My sister was married at 19. She had dropped out of high school to be with the guy she married (granted stupid choice). Her husband left her when she was 40 so married 21 years. He kept her "barefoot and pregnant" for the first several years of the marriage (8 years between oldest and youngest child). 4 kids. He refused to let her have a job and he wouldn't let her have any money or a car of her own. In fact he barely let her leave the house - total control freak. He literally only gave her $100 a week in grocery money for her and the kids. They were living on PB&J and mac-n-cheese while he ate out on a daily basis with his buddies and later girlfriends. He spent money on all sorts of crap but she and the kids had nothing he wouldn't even pay for propane for the gas tank in their house so they froze while he was seldom home. He ended up leaving her for another woman and treating the OW's kids better than he ever treated his own. I think my sister should have been entitled to alimony at least long enough for her to get her GED, maybe at least an Associate's Degree, and a decent job. Unfortunately she got nothing because he quit working and hasn't held a "legitimate job" since he moved out. She lost her house and her only source of income, and ended up moving in with our RETIRED, LOW INCOME parents who are now supporting her and the kids, which is far less fair than alimony would have been. What's worse, he actually had the nerve to sue HER for spousal support after SHE went back to work doing the only thing she knew how to do - childcare. Didn't get it though.

I do NOT believe alimony is appropriate if the wife (or spouse with less income) is fully capable of supporting themselves at a decent standard of living. I do think if there is a huge income discrepancy (for example my husband makes more than 20X more income per year than I do) then there should be an allowance for an adjustment period, especially if there are children involved. If the wife is incapable of making enough money, due to lack of education or employment experience, to pay the rent/mortgage on the marital home alone, I do think the husband should have to at least continue to pay the mortgage in order to keep the children from having to leave their home. But I definitely don't think a SAHM should have to go from a decent (say $100,000 a year) standard of living, to what she can make scrubbing toilets in a local hotel (minimum wage) overnight. Unless she's the one at fault for the marriage ending. And I believe permanent alimony is appropriate if the wife is too disabled to work - especially if the husband is leaving because he doesn't want to live with a disabled wife. In that case, as far as I'm concerned, he deserves to have to pay as much alimony as possible. I have no use whatsoever for a man who leaves his wife because she made the decision to have her breasts removed in order to save her life or because she's now permanently in a wheelchair after an accident. I don't think most courts do either.

I don't believe in a double standard either. If the guy sacrificed building a career to be a stay at home dad because his wife wanted to be a doctor or a lawyer, he should get temporary alimony until he has a chance to get a decent job on his own as well. However if there aren't any kids and he's just been mooching off her for years because he's simply a lazy bum, he's not entitled to a penny. Nor is a woman in a similar situation.


----------



## sillysophie

EleGirl said:


> If the kids have a safe home to live in, clothing, food, and activities, medical care, etc. then the money is being spent on the children.
> 
> If they do not have these things, then the parent who received child support is negligent and the paying parent needs to gather evidence and go back to court.


Seriously? The custodial parent is negligent if they can't provide their children a decent standard of living when they only make $600 a month and the NCP is only giving them $40 a month CS per child? You're really making an assumption that CS is always a decent amount of money. What if NEITHER parent has a decent income, or the NCP is disabled or unemployed? Or better yet in jail for drugs, which seems to be the common problem in our school district...the NCP is in jail, the CP is struggling just to get by, and it's the kids who lose.


----------



## bfree

jld said:


> The needs of the SAHM do not stop after a divorce. It is incredibly selfish and simply immoral to take the fertile years of a woman's life, watch her raise your children, freeing you up to devote yourself to your career, and then think you can leave her to fend for herself 20 or 30 years later, regardless of your justification for doing so.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


I never said anything to the contrary. I simply said that Dug's analogy doesn't hold. When a divorce occurs there is no longer any partnership. Dug compared alimony to a pension. Say I work for company ABC. I retire. Company ABC dissolves. Can I expect a pension? Where would it come from if the company no longer exists.

Fair - no.

Realistic - yes.

I'm not sure of my stance on alimony. In some ways I feel it is incredibly unfair. But in other ways I think it may be necessary in some cases. One thought I have is that maybe couples who intend on having one parent stay home be forced to put aside a percentage of the collective income to serve as rehabilitative financing in the event of a divorce. Sort of like a 401K for the SAHP to be cashed in if the marriage ends. It seems to me that this would be more fair.


----------



## tech-novelist

bfree said:


> I never said anything to the contrary. I simply said that Dug's analogy doesn't hold. When a divorce occurs there is no longer any partnership. Dug compared alimony to a pension. Say I work for company ABC. I retire. Company ABC dissolves. Can I expect a pension? Where would it come from if the company no longer exists.
> 
> Fair - no.
> 
> Realistic - yes.
> 
> I'm not sure of my stance on alimony. In some ways I feel it is incredibly unfair. But in other ways I think it may be necessary in some cases. One thought I have is that maybe couples who intend on having one parent stay home be forced to put aside a percentage of the collective income to serve as rehabilitative financing in the event of a divorce. Sort of like a 401K for the SAHP to be cashed in if the marriage ends. It seems to me that this would be more fair.


Actually, in the case of a company dissolving, the pension obligation remains and is going to be very near the beginning of the line of claims on assets.

However, there is still a big difference in that pensions are specified when you take the job, not decided on when you quit or are fired. So it is obvious to me that the analogous solution would be that before you can get married, you get to see and must agree to the contract terms will actually be while married and if/when you get divorced. That would make any arrangement fairer, because at least you would know what you were letting yourself in for at the beginning rather than at the end.


----------



## jld

@bfree

The company is not really dissolving. Money is still coming in. There are resources to meet obligations.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bfree

jld said:


> @bfree
> 
> The company is not really dissolving. Money is still coming in. There are resources to meet obligations.
> _Posted via Mobile Device_


But the company is dissolved. If I form a partnership with someone and the partnership is dissolved should that person be entitled to any of my future earnings?

I'm just saying that you cannot equate marriage with a business and then be upset when those comparisons do not work in your favor.


----------



## jld

bfree said:


> But the company is dissolved. If I form a partnership with someone and the partnership is dissolved should that person be entitled to any of my future earnings?
> 
> I'm just saying that you cannot equate marriage with a business and then be upset when those comparisons do not work in your favor.


Yes, I think they are entitled. They invested in you in the beginning. If you have money coming in, they are entitled to part of it.

Analogies are not going to be exact. A marriage, like a family, is not a company. It does not exist just for material reasons, though that is certainly part of it.


----------



## Erudite

My husband will have a career that I helped build for him. He will have certifications and experience. He will still have as much access as he wants to his children for I will not punish them by asking for restrictions on visitation. He will have a credit history while the little credit I have was shot when he stopped paying the mortgage. As I said earlier alimony plus cs plus my job would leave me short to pay basic monthly expenses. I will not be living debt or mortgage free. Ever. (barring some stroke of fortune)
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bfree

jld said:


> Yes, I think they are entitled. They invested in you in the beginning. If you have money coming in, they are entitled to part of it.
> 
> Analogies are not going to be exact. A marriage, like a family, is not a company. It does not exist just for material reasons, though that is certainly part of it.


But that's not how it works. I'm not entitled to anyone else's earnings. I believe that's been tried in the past and it failed miserably. See "Communism."

I agree that a marriage is not like a company which is why those analogies don't work. If I thought along those lines I would be vehemently against all forms of alimony. But I do agree that they are probably necessary in some cases. I think there needs to be a better system for distribution of assets, both present and future, in the event of the dissolution of a marriage. The reality is that nobody wins in a divorce so I'd only be in favor of a solution that represents this unfortunate truth to those that would seek such a split. Maybe if there were clearly spelled out penalties to both parties we'd have less divorces in our society. After divorce nobody should expect to maintain their previous standard of living and everyone should expect severe consequences. Marriage should not be entered into lightly and divorce has become too damned easy.


----------



## jld

bfree said:


> But that's not how it works. I'm not entitled to anyone else's earnings. I believe that's been tried in the past and it failed miserably. See "Communism."


We all pay taxes, bfree. It is part of our responsibility for living in our society. 



> I agree that a marriage is not like a company which is why those analogies don't work. If I thought along those lines I would be vehemently against all forms of alimony. But I do agree that they are probably necessary in some cases. I think there needs to be a better system for distribution of assets, both present and future, in the event of the dissolution of a marriage. The reality is that nobody wins in a divorce so I'd only be in favor of a solution that represents this unfortunate truth to those that would seek such a split. Maybe if there were clearly spelled out penalties to both parties we'd have less divorces in our society. After divorce nobody should expect to maintain their previous standard of living and everyone should expect severe consequences. Marriage should not be entered into lightly and divorce has become too damned easy.


Whether or not there is a decrease in the standard of living, and how long it lasts, seems to depend on both the balance of financial contribution to the marriage before the split, and the earning potential of each spouse. Lifeistooshort, for example, likely only increased her standard of living when she left her military spouse and sahm status and entered the workforce as an actuary. I, otoh, would lose a lot were I to divorce my engineer husband, with my teaching certificate from 20+ years ago and no paid work experience since.


----------



## Wolfman1968

Pluto2 said:


> State guidelines for child support already take both parent's income into consideration when setting the amount of support the custodial parent receives. Some do it directly in a computation,* some do it indirectly by awarding a percentage of income of non-custodial parent.*
> I agree it is formulaic. But the system before statutory guidelines was unworkable and left most kids with insufficient support.
> 
> 
> And unrelated to your post, suggestions to equate spousal support with fault for divorce are vengeful and regressive. They were eliminated for a reason.


The bolded is not true, in that a percentage of a non-custodial parent does NOT take into account both parents' income. 

Obvious example: High earning non-custodial parent is required to pay, say 25% of his income. Non-custodial parent could potentially use only that windfall to pay for the children and NOT contribute at all. In fact, the portion that supposedly is used for housing, property taxes, etc. will ultimately go to the custodial parent when the child leaves and the custodial parent gets to keep (or sell for a profit) the home that was partially funded by the child support. (And that's without even considering the charges that the custodial parent uses the child support funds DIRECTLY on him/her self. But such claims routinely fly in child support cases involving high paid athletes, movie stars, etc. when the child support is a windfall amount).


----------



## farsidejunky

SimplyAmorous said:


> I appreciate how you think .. really I do -cause I am mostly just a Stay at Home.. ..
> 
> I see it this way... just as YOU would step up & provide alimony even if the law did not require it... because you feel so strongly... So honorable.... Love that..
> 
> From my end.. this is how I feel... and strongly.. if I cheated on a good man.. I don't deserve Sh** ... I can see both sides.. there should be consequences for our actions.. if a Stay at home has another dude.. let him take care of her - from then on... that's my reasoning...
> 
> When I hear of these cases where the wife was cheating while the Man was at work (if he was a good man that is) .. then he has to pay for HER..and she's shacking up with her lover... eating high off the hog.. the injustice of this makes my blood boil...God forbid if this ever happened to one of our sons!
> 
> BUt that's just me.. We all have our views.. didn't ask my husband how he'd feel if He found out I was cheating.. then more $$ of out of his paycheck after the divorce... he's a pretty nice guy.. but I do think he'd spit on that one .


This is why I love you, SA.

Sent from my SM-N910V using Tapatalk


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> We all pay taxes, bfree. It is part of our responsibility for living in our society.
> 
> 
> 
> Whether or not there is a decrease in the standard of living, and how long it lasts, seems to depend on both the balance of financial contribution to the marriage before the split, and the earning potential of each spouse. Lifeistooshort, for example, likely only increased her standard of living when she left her military spouse and sahm status and entered the workforce as an actuary. *I, otoh, would lose a lot were I to divorce my engineer husband, with my teaching certificate from 20+ years ago and no paid work experience since.*


A person cannot lose something they never had. The prospective future earnings of a life not yet lived cannot be lost. They weren't yours to begin with. 

I'll leave you with an ancient quote, from a Roman Emperor:



> ...a man cannot lose either the past or the future: *for what a man has not, how can any one take this from him?* These two things then thou must bear in mind; the one, that all things from eternity are of like forms and come round in a circle, and that it makes no difference whether a man shall see the same things during a hundred years or two hundred, or an infinite time; and the second, that the longest liver and he who will die soonest lose just the same. *For the present is the only thing of which a man can be deprived, if it is true that this is the only thing which he has, and that a man cannot lose a thing if he has it not.*


It is indentured servitude for men that you preach. It is perpetual childhood for women.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> A person cannot lose something they never had. The prospective future earnings of a life not yet lived cannot be lost. They weren't yours to begin with.


The understanding Dug and I had was that I would give him children, as he wanted them with *me,* and bring them up the way he outlined the first week we were dating. For his part, he would provide for me financially for a lifetime.

If he were not to provide for me in the event of a divorce, I doubt our children would continue to speak to him. 



> It is indentured servitude for men that you preach. It is perpetual childhood for women.


I think you are actually arguing the opposite, kivlor.

It is maturity and responsibility I am talking about, not using a woman during her fertile years and then turning his back on his responsibilities toward her later.


----------



## Erudite

After leaving a marriage no spouse should ever be destitute while the other is not (which is what I would be) I was not the best wife but I was not unfaithful, abusive, or a substance abuser either. I did contribute financially to my ability within the marriage. Further my inability to make ends meet after divorce could have serious consequences pertaining to custody. I could lose access to my kids. If there were no alimony nor generous child support many women would be trapped into their marriage. This would give husbands unprecedented license to control the wife's life and the potential for abuse would be high. 

Also when one is contemplating rehabilitative alimony there are a lot of not readily seen logistics. Such as who will be watching the children if the cp has to work nights or weekends. Paid childcare for after hours care is twice as expensive as day care. Who will be taking the kids to their after school activities? Who would be responsible for student loans if the cp has to retrain? If the cp is paying that on her own it means less for her kids and higher child support/alimony.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## bfree

JLD, I'm going to paint a scenario for you and I'd like you to tell me how it should end.

A man and a woman marry. They are both starting out in promising careers. They decide to have children with the understanding that the woman will go back to work after the children are old enough to go to school/daycare. They have two children in successive years. The woman decides to wait a little longer before going back to work. In the meantime she develops a drinking problem which turns into full blown alcoholism. The man tries everything to help his wife to no avail. He is told to divorce her but ultimately decides to uphold his vows as he doesn't believe in divorce. He essentially takes over much of the parenting duties as well as keeping his career on track in order to support the family. After several years his wife finally decides to get her drinking under control. She sobers up and tries to resume her career only to find the industry has passed her by. She becomes depressed. Her husband suggests counseling. She agrees and begins counseling. Her therapist suggests a support group. She joins the support group. She promptly meets someone, develops feelings for this man, has an affair and files for divorce from her husband. During the divorce she demands alimony.

Should she have been able to demand alimony?

Should she have been granted alimony?

What should have happened in this case?


----------



## jld

bfree said:


> JLD, I'm going to paint a scenario for you and I'd like you to tell me how it should end.
> 
> A man and a woman marry. They are both starting out in promising careers. They decide to have children with the understanding that the woman will go back to work after the children are old enough to go to school/daycare. They have two children in successive years. The woman decides to wait a little longer before going back to work. In the meantime she develops a drinking problem which turns into full blown alcoholism. The man tries everything to help his wife to no avail. He is told to divorce her but ultimately decides to uphold his vows as he doesn't believe in divorce. He essentially takes over much of the parenting duties as well as keeping his career on track in order to support the family. After several years his wife finally decides to get her drinking under control. She sobers up and tries to resume her career only to find the industry has passed her by. She becomes depressed. Her husband suggests counseling. She agrees and begins counseling. Her therapist suggests a support group. She joins the support group. She promptly meets someone, develops feelings for this man, has an affair and files for divorce from her husband. During the divorce she demands alimony.
> 
> Should she have been able to demand alimony?
> 
> Should she have been granted alimony?
> 
> What should have happened in this case?


Yes, I think she should get alimony according to whatever her state's formula is, if those formulas exist.

Bfree, cheating and drinking have nothing to do with the need to keep her from being a financial drag on the state, which is the foremost reason, imo, that courts order alimony.


----------



## bfree

jld said:


> Yes, I think she should get alimony according to whatever her state's formula is, if those formulas exist.
> 
> Bfree, cheating and drinking have nothing to do with the need to keep her from being a financial drag on the state, which is the foremost reason, imo, that courts order alimony.


And yet the reason she is not gainfully employed and in the possession of a good career is not his fault. She decided to stay home after the time they agreed upon. She developed a drinking problem which further sabotaged her ability to be self sufficient after the divorce. In fact she is the one that broke the vows and filed for divorce. So why should she get anything from him when these were all her choices? Shouldn't she be accountable for her choices? Where does her accountability lie?

Let's take this a bit further. I'm sure Dug makes a good paycheck. Let's say Dug's friend falls on hard times. Should the courts order Dug to help out his friend so that this friend isn't a burden on the state? Should your children sacrifice dance classes so his friend won't go on food stamps? What if your friend was destitute? Should the state tax your family budget in order to help your friend? Do you explain to your children that they cannot have the new Nikes because your friend is a recovering drug addict that needs the money more than they do? If my friend was in trouble would you volunteer part of Dug's income to help him out so he doesn't become a welfare recipient? Where does it end? I'll tell you where it all ends. It ends with all of us living in an egalitarian slum with no incentive to work and improve.

ETA: And for the record, if the roles were reversed and a woman was being divorced by her abusive alcoholic husband you would agree that he deserves alimony from her if she is the one who works because he was too drunk to get off the couch and get a job right?


----------



## jld

bfree said:


> And yet the reason she is not gainfully employed and in the possession of a good career is not his fault. She decided to stay home after the time they agreed upon. She developed a drinking problem which further sabotaged her ability to be self sufficient after the divorce. In fact she is the one that broke the vows and filed for divorce. So why should she get anything from him when these were all her choices? Shouldn't she be accountable for her choices? Where does her accountability lie?
> 
> Let's take this a bit further. I'm sure Dug makes a good paycheck. Let's say Dug's friend falls on hard times. Should the courts order Dug to help out his friend so that this friend isn't a burden on the state? Should your children sacrifice dance classes so his friend won't go on food stamps? What if your friend was destitute? Should the state tax your family budget in order to help your friend? Do you explain to your children that they cannot have the new Nikes because your friend is a recovering drug addict that needs the money more than they do? If my friend was in trouble would you volunteer part of Dug's income to help him out so he doesn't become a welfare recipient? Where does it end? I'll tell you where it all ends. It ends with all of us living in an egalitarian slum with no incentive to work and improve.


I don't think everyone who gets divorced and pays or receives alimony lives "in an egalitarian slum with no incentive to work and improve." As a matter of fact, no one I personally know who gets it or pays it, and I admit that is very few, is living that way.

Dug was never married to that friend in your second paragraph. Different relationship.

For the alcoholic woman, we don't know all the factors that went into the divorce, her difficulties, or the decision to stay home longer. 

It is similar to no-fault divorce. Just accepting it and trying to move forward in as reasonable a way as possible is the healthiest way to go, imo.

I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few questions, bfree. Your wife works full-time, correct? So it is not like alimony would ever be an issue for you personally, no? It is more an opinion, perhaps politically influenced, that you hold on it? Did you have to pay it to your first wife?


----------



## jld

bfree said:


> ETA: And for the record, if the roles were reversed and a woman was being divorced by her abusive alcoholic husband you would agree that he deserves alimony from her if she is the one who works because he was too drunk to get off the couch and get a job right?


I am pretty sure that is how the law works.


----------



## IIJokerII

Alimony is a complicated idea for a very intricate reason. Should it be available for the lower income soon to be ex spouse, well, the answer is not a blanketed one. The circumstances of the divorce are always the base point of the rationale of alimony among the public consensus but hold almost no merit in the courts of family law, something that is devoid of a jury btw (Conveniently i'd say)

Let's say he/she leaves a highly abusive relationship where they were forced to submit to being a stay at home parent and domestic servant. Then the answer is yes, the responsible party for keeping said individual from attaining any by force and abuse SHOULD be held accountable. 

Let's say a man/woman dissolves the marriage due to abuse, emotional, physical financial, etc, from his or her lower or non income partner. Then the answer should be no. 

Let's say the man/woman just ain't feeling it for actual personal reasons of dissatisfaction, non affair related, and wants to split amicably to move his or her life in another direction. Then the answer is no, 

And the most common, let's say the husband or wife has sought and attained another relationship and destroys the marriage and whatever else that was co owned or earned taking half on the way out the door..... This should require no written answer.

It is inherent though that a gender bias does provenly exist in the family justice system, and with this men, seen as the primary bread winner, not only should but MUST pay for the severance package per se of the exiting party, regardless of the means of leaving. It should be that only fair child support, and not the one based of gross income either ( The archaic and complicated calculator for CS payments is insanely inept and unreasonable) be balanced between the two parents. If one person wants to leave outside of a harmful situation, then let them deal with the adjustments they so badly wanted on their own. I couldn't quit my job and expect them to keep paying me something nor could I trash the place and expect a exit bonus either. 

Sadly, the US will never allow for a responsible method of alimony and fair equitable dissolution of property, unless you get lawyers involved, which is just a cost to all people involved in the marriage.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Here is another situation.. and in these cases it surely wouldn't involve the wasting of tax payers money.. but more abuse.. and someone who cheated -gets to make out like a bandit.. 

Was reading People's magazine this am... I guess Blake Sheldon & Gwen Stefani  are a couple.. Now here is the thing.. she was married like 20 yrs.. has 3 kids.. I am assuming she was faithful (hey that's amazing for a rock star!)... but her husband was F***king the nanny.. Yep.. *HE CHEATED* !! She has every right to walk away from him.. Lawfully.. she wanted a divorce.. 

As I see it.. he F**ked it up . 

Her financial worth is like *$100 million* or something.. *his $35 million*.. and what does he want.."spousal support".. what a crock!! 

He doesn't deserve nothing.. he brought this upon himself...he is playing it all up like HE is the victim here..Oh and he is soooo poor.. Good for her to get rid of him !

Blake's reason for leaving Miranda, his ex...honestly I sympathized with him too...she promised they'd have kids, that was in the plan..... she kept bulking year after year after year after year.. . he's almost 40 .... that was his deal breaker...

I'm not even one who sees all Cheating as so black & white.. if a spouse is so low drive, a workaholic, neglectful.. personally I can see how the other would feel like they are crawling in the desert thirsting for water & could fall into something..... still wrong.. but I can sympathize with the loneliness & suffering that such a situation can bring.. 

***********************************************************

Myself & JLD see this differently ... likely do to our circumstances....

For one... she was IN COLLEGE, working on her degree when she met DUG & they agreed she'd stay home, breastfeed & home-school, sacrificing her career for this role.. then she was ever the supportive wife following him around the world, while he built his career .. sometimes he would only be home 4 days a MONTH !!!.. she has given up A LOT for the raising of the family ... 

Me.. I never went to college... my job was a few bucks over minimum wage back then.. So I don't see myself as giving up a career ....I was just blessed his job combined with our frugalness has allowed me to not have to work full time.. I've never had a pampered lifestyle.. I know what it's like to pinch pennies.. and work extra hours & all that.. so if I screwed something up.. I'd just figure.. that's what I deserve.. to go back to that.. 

In reality ...my husband would hardly be able to afford living on his own, child support - then spousal support on top of that.. He'd be better off to shoot himself in the head ... I'd seriously RUIN this man's life ...by f***king around on him.. and destroying everything HE worked for.. 

He has put himself in a risky situation.. good thing I am a faithful woman.. though I can be demanding in some areas (like being frugal with our $$ -because we do enjoy this lifestyle -it gives us more time together, it's less rushed, busy)... we think an awful lot alike.. so we're a good match..

I did ask his opinion on this last night.. he feels as I do.. if one broke the marriage contract - leading to divorce.. why should they get anything, No.. he feels the Lover should take care of her .. if she wanted him so bad.. 

Just as DUG sees it the same as JLD... not taking any of the emotional into account here..just the time she SERVED is deserving of it.. 

It's just a different way to look at it.. .My husband is not one against Alimony at all... just if their was cheating and the ruining of a happy family from pure selfishness.. 

But again.. the courts don't want involved in all of this.. I get that.. so the ABUSE will continue.. unfortunately this is why MANY JUST WANT IT TO DIE.. which I find unfortunate.


----------



## bfree

jld said:


> I don't think everyone who gets divorced and pays or receives alimony lives "in an egalitarian slum with no incentive to work and improve." As a matter of fact, no one I personally know who gets it or pays it, and I admit that is very few, is living that way.
> 
> Dug was never married to that friend in your second paragraph. Different relationship.
> 
> For the alcoholic woman, we don't know all the factors that went into the divorce, her difficulties, or the decision to stay home longer.
> 
> It is similar to no-fault divorce. Just accepting it and trying to move forward in as reasonable a way as possible is the healthiest way to go, imo.
> 
> I hope you don't mind if I ask you a few questions, bfree. Your wife works full-time, correct? So it is not like alimony would ever be an issue for you personally, no? It is more an opinion, perhaps politically influenced, that you hold on it? Did you have to pay it to your first wife?


No, with my first wife we just split everything up and went our separate ways. Admittedly there wasn't much to split as we were still pretty young. My wife does work but it is not full time. I on the other hand have a pretty successful career and make quite a bit more than she does. If we were to divorce I have no doubt that she would be entitled to some alimony.

We talked about her being a SAHP but she decided that wasn't for her. In her mind that's just no longer realistic in today's society and she felt that there just isn't enough "work" to do if BOTH parties are working together and focused on the common good. If I recall correctly she actually said that if one spouse stays home and is continually busy then they are either just inventing things to make them look busy or their husband/wife is a lazy ass that leaves all the household duties to them.

As for politics, my wife is a staunch republican and I am a card carrying libertarian. We both believe that society excels when there is incentive to work to succeed and grow. Any kind of public assistance, and we both include alimony in that category, is a disincentive to work for both parties. The recipient has little reason to improve as they will always have a safety net. And the one paying has little incentive to earn more because it will just be more that is taken away. Therefore society as a whole suffers.


----------



## bfree

jld said:


> I am pretty sure that is how the law works.


It may be how the law works but do you agree that it is fair? Your opinion please.


----------



## Duguesclin

IIJokerII said:


> Alimony is a complicated idea for a very intricate reason. Should it be available for the lower income soon to be ex spouse, well, the answer is not a blanketed one. The circumstances of the divorce are always the base point of the rationale of alimony among the public consensus but hold almost no merit in the courts of family law, something that is devoid of a jury btw (Conveniently i'd say)
> 
> Let's say he/she leaves a highly abusive relationship where they were forced to submit to being a stay at home parent and domestic servant. Then the answer is yes, the responsible party for keeping said individual from attaining any by force and abuse SHOULD be held accountable.
> 
> Let's say a man/woman dissolves the marriage due to abuse, emotional, physical financial, etc, from his or her lower or non income partner. Then the answer should be no.
> 
> Let's say the man/woman just ain't feeling it for actual personal reasons of dissatisfaction, non affair related, and wants to split amicably to move his or her life in another direction. Then the answer is no,
> 
> And the most common, let's say the husband or wife has sought and attained another relationship and destroys the marriage and whatever else that was co owned or earned taking half on the way out the door..... This should require no written answer.
> 
> It is inherent though that a gender bias does provenly exist in the family justice system, and with this men, seen as the primary bread winner, not only should but MUST pay for the severance package per se of the exiting party, regardless of the means of leaving. It should be that only fair child support, and not the one based of gross income either ( The archaic and complicated calculator for CS payments is insanely inept and unreasonable) be balanced between the two parents. If one person wants to leave outside of a harmful situation, then let them deal with the adjustments they so badly wanted on their own.* I couldn't quit my job and expect them to keep paying me something* nor could I trash the place and expect a exit bonus either.
> 
> Sadly, the US will never allow for a responsible method of alimony and fair equitable dissolution of property, unless you get lawyers involved, which is just a cost to all people involved in the marriage.


If you get injured at work and you can no longer work, the company (actually their insurance) will keep paying you. That pension will be calculated based on the missed future earnings.

Alimony works similarly except that the income of the working is factored in the alimony calculation.


----------



## jld

SimplyAmorous said:


> For one... she was IN COLLEGE, working on her degree when she met DUG & they agreed she'd stay home, breastfeed & home-school, sacrificing her career for this role.. then she was ever the supportive wife following him around the world, while he built his career .. sometimes he would only be home 4 days a MONTH !!!.. she has given up A LOT for the raising of the family ...
> 
> Just as DUG sees it the same as JLD... not taking any of the emotional into account here..*just the time she SERVED is deserving of it.. *


SA, the bolded made me laugh! But you are right, that is exactly how Dug sees it, that I deserve compensation for "time served!" 

Just a slight correction: I had graduated from college 3 months before I met Dug. It really was a shocker, though, when after knowing him for only 6 weeks, he told me he loved me and wanted to have a family with me. And as lifeistooshort said, I basically put my life into his hands.


----------



## jld

bfree said:


> No, with my first wife we just split everything up and went our separate ways. Admittedly there wasn't much to split as we were still pretty young. My wife does work but it is not full time. I on the other hand have a pretty successful career and make quite a bit more than she does. If we were to divorce I have no doubt that she would be entitled to some alimony.
> 
> We talked about her being a SAHP but she decided that wasn't for her. In her mind that's just no longer realistic in today's society and she felt that there just isn't enough "work" to do if BOTH parties are working together and focused on the common good. If I recall correctly she actually said that if one spouse stays home and is continually busy then they are either just inventing things to make them look busy or their husband/wife is a lazy ass that leaves all the household duties to them.
> 
> As for politics, my wife is a staunch republican and I am a card carrying libertarian. We both believe that society excels when there is incentive to work to succeed and grow. Any kind of public assistance, and we both include alimony in that category, is a disincentive to work for both parties. The recipient has little reason to improve as they will always have a safety net. And the one paying has little incentive to earn more because it will just be more that is taken away. Therefore society as a whole suffers.


Thanks for answering my questions, bfree. I think we are getting a bit afield from the original post, so will try to keep to the topic.


----------



## Duguesclin

SimplyAmorous said:


> Just as DUG sees it the same as JLD... not taking any of the emotional into account here..just the time she *SERVED* is deserving of it..


And she has the scars to show for it :smile2:.


----------



## jld

bfree said:


> It may be how the law works but do you agree that it is fair? Your opinion please.


I think so, bfree. 

Marriage is a big decision. We all need to marry wisely. Or face the consequences.


----------



## jld

Duguesclin said:


> And she has the scars to show for it :smile2:.


Indeed.


----------



## Duguesclin

bfree said:


> It may be how the law works but do you agree that it is fair? Your opinion please.


It is what it is. We all make decisions. If a woman chooses to stay with a worthless guy, she will bear the consequences.


----------



## jld

@Duguesclin

Actually, Dug, these Bible verses make me think of your marriage proposal to me:

"Take My yoke upon you and learn from Me, for I am gentle and humble in heart, and you will find rest for your soul. For My yoke is easy and My burden is light."



Okay, back to alimony . . .


----------



## soccermom2three

> Blake's reason for leaving Miranda, his ex...honestly I sympathized with him too...she promised they'd have kids, that was in the plan..... she kept bulking year after year after year after year.. . he's almost 40 .... that was his deal breaker...



Blake is a cheater. He cheated on his first wife and he cheated on Miranda. I can't say how I know but I know.


----------



## IIJokerII

Duguesclin said:


> If you get injured at work and you can no longer work, the company (actually their insurance) will keep paying you. That pension will be calculated based on the missed future earnings.
> 
> Alimony works similarly except that the income of the working is factored in the alimony calculation.


 I can't disagree with your assessment, however if the injury was self induced or amplified for show of "Suffering" then what? 

"What are you doing Wilson"
"I'm smashing my nuts in the hydrolic press cause the company handbook doesn't say anywhere that I SHOULDN'T do it so it's your fault"
" Hey, you're right, put you wang in there for good measure, best not to leave anything half done".


----------



## Duguesclin

IIJokerII said:


> I can't disagree with your assessment, however if the injury was self induced or amplified for show of "Suffering" then what?
> 
> "What are you doing Wilson"
> "I'm smashing my nuts in the hydrolic press cause the company handbook doesn't say anywhere that I SHOULDN'T do it so it's your fault"
> " Hey, you're right, put you wang in there for good measure, best not to leave anything half done".


You seem to identify with the CEO who thinks his sneaky employees are trying to get free money by faking injuries.

Again I put great value in a stay at home mom and I put my money where my mouth is.


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> If you get injured at work and you can no longer work, the company (actually their insurance) will keep paying you. That pension will be calculated based on the missed future earnings.
> 
> Alimony works similarly except that the income of the working is factored in the alimony calculation.


Worker's comp is payed by the state, not the company. Also, workman's comp is not available for life based on duration of employment. Also, leaving the company doesn't entitle you to workman's comp. 

Your analogies don't fit the reality of the system we are describing.



Duguesclin said:


> It is what it is. We all make decisions. If a woman chooses to stay with a worthless guy, she will bear the consequences.


In a discussion thread on whether or not there should be Alimony, when someone asks you if the system you propose is right / fair / just, you respond: It doesn't matter. LOL

Shouldn't that be the most important factor in a law?


----------



## bfree

Duguesclin said:


> You seem to identify with the CEO who thinks his sneaky employees are trying to get free money by faking injuries.
> 
> Again I put great value in a stay at home mom and I put my money where my mouth is.


Well, I can think of one divorce in process right now where the threat of lifetime alimony is being used as a sledge hammer for revenge and to garner a lopsided deal. So it does happen.

You have every right to do that. And I commend you for it. You are an honorable man and those are sorely lacking in this day and age. But not everyone is in your situation. You cannot, should not put other people's money where your mouth is.


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> In a discussion thread on whether or not there should be Alimony, when someone asks you if the system you propose is right / fair / just, you respond: It doesn't matter. LOL
> 
> Shouldn't that be the most important factor in a law?


You obviously do not think alimony laws are just or fair. I think the contrary. Laws are there to benefit the greater society. If we disagree with them we can lobby our elected official to change it.


----------



## Duguesclin

bfree said:


> Well, I can think of one divorce in process right now where the threat of lifetime alimony is being used as a sledge hammer for revenge and to garner a lopsided deal. So it does happen.
> 
> You have every right to do that. And I commend you for it. You are an honorable man and those are sorely lacking in this day and age. But not everyone is in your situation. You cannot, should not put other people's money where your mouth is.


Your argument is that alimony is abused (mostly by women), and therefore it should not be allowed.

I would like to see the data.

It is one thing to listen to the husband screaming he has been shafted during the alimony award process. It is another to look at each case with a level head.


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> You obviously do not think alimony laws are just or fair. I think the contrary. Laws are there to benefit the greater society. If we disagree with them we can lobby our elected official to change it.


I don't think they are just. Justice is the purpose of the law. 

I think it is hilarious that Dug dodges the philosophical questions that are posed to him, hiding behind "well, it's that way now, so it doesn't matter". In a discussion on the question of _whether or not a law should exist_, it is fallacious to appeal to the law. 

It's circular logic.


----------



## SimplyAmorous

> *soccermom2three said *: *Blake is a cheater. He cheated on his first wife and he cheated on Miranda. I can't say how I know but I know.*


 I've only read 2 Magazine articles.... so yeah.. You surely have the scoop.. anyone in Hollywood who doesn't cheat.. well.. they probably just didn't get caught (yet).. ....It's just very hard to believe.. this doesn't surprise me none.. 

Also him & Gwen are having a baby, and oh so happy.. it just seems the whole world is screwed up.. it's such a rarity to find those who take marriage & the vows seriously anymore.. 



Duguesclin said:


> *You seem to identify with the CEO who thinks his sneaky employees are trying to get free money by faking injuries.*


 My husband has mentioned how people where he works will intentionally try to get hurt if they learn they will soon be laid off.. I don't mean, his co-workers per say.... but others in that same company, I guess it's happened.. 

This is why if there is a lay off coming.. it can't be leaked.. so the employee gets the ax when he shows up on the job.. I am sure it happens.. people do some crazy desperate things when it means the  stops !

I'm afraid I've watched one too many Forensic Files too...makes it hard to trust anyone's motives anymore..


----------



## Shoto1984

Sorry for the cynicism, but I see alimony as just another nail in the coffin of marriage. Obviously I'm jaded from my experience, but I would never get married again nor would I encourage a young person to do so. The likelihood of a good return on your "investment" is just too low and the social stigma of having children out of "wedlock" has all but disappeared. There's just no reason anymore and thus I'm leaving this board forever.... ok not that last part :grin2:


----------



## michzz

Yes, Kivlor understood. The exact opposite of what Duguesclin thought.

I think there ought to be default understanding in a marriage that there will NOT be alimony unless it is specified in a prenuptial agreement.

This circumstance is the reverse of what the rules are currently. You have to get someone to agree to not get alimony by way of a prenuptial agreement.

Most of us are too young and immature, and not wanting to upset the spouse, to push for a prenup.

My flipping the default to a presumption of no alimony, that levels the playing field to modern reality.

The current rules allowed my wh0ring ex-wife to get a fortune out of me that she does not deserve.

My wish is that the rules would change to prevent such robbery in the future.



Kivlor said:


> I thought the last statement in his post was pretty clear, but I could be wrong. Seemed like "No alimony, unless you both agreed at the outset, or if someone violates the marital contract"





Duguesclin said:


> I am trying to understand your logic. So if a guy cheats on his stay at home wife and they divorce, he should pay alimony and some more for the rest of his life?





michzz said:


> Getting back to the OP's question.
> 
> I believe in a short-term rehabilitative alimony for a stay at home spouse in the event of a divorce.
> 
> *I also believe that there should be no alimony for anyone that cheats. This no fault divorce rule is crap.*
> 
> My ex-wife cheated for many years and sucked out resources by not fully working at her realtor job while she cheated. Plus, she infected me with HPV, which resulted in throat cancer many years later.
> 
> But I have to pay her a fortune since she was my wife for decades. The world is unfair, I get that. But this situation can be remedied by outlawing alimony.
> 
> Let's flip the default situation. Make it that you have to have a prenup to agree to alimony being paid in the event of divorce.


----------



## bfree

Duguesclin said:


> Your argument is that alimony is abused (mostly by women), and therefore it should not be allowed.
> 
> I would like to see the data.
> 
> It is one thing to listen to the husband screaming he has been shafted during the alimony award process. It is another to look at each case with a level head.


Actually my argument is that alimony is often used as a hammer in divorce negotiations. It should be standardized so that there is no negotiation possible just like child support. Do you disagree?


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> I don't think they are just. Justice is the purpose of the law.
> 
> I think it is hilarious that Dug dodges the philosophical questions that are posed to him, hiding behind "well, it's that way now, so it doesn't matter". In a discussion on the question of _whether or not a law should exist_, it is fallacious to appeal to the law.
> 
> It's circular logic.


I never said it did not matter. What I said was "It is what it is". 

Is it fair for a worthless alcoholic man who has been living off his wife for many years to get alimony, no. Is it just to have this man in this very unlikely situation to receive alimony if it means the woman that has given 20 years of her life to her family will receive alimony from her abusive husband, yes.


----------



## Duguesclin

bfree said:


> Actually my argument is that alimony is often used as a hammer in divorce negotiations. It should be standardized so that there is no negotiation possible just like child support. Do you disagree?


That sounds reasonable.


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> I never said it did not matter. What I said was "It is what it is".
> 
> Is it fair for a worthless alcoholic man who has been living off his wife for many years to get alimony, no. Is it just to have this man in this very unlikely situation to receive alimony if it means the woman that has given 20 years of her life to her family will receive alimony from her abusive husband, yes.


In a system of "no fault", the court isn't supposed to take into account these circumstances. The court is supposed to consider whether or not the lower income (or SAH, in some marriages) spouse can provide the same level of comfort to themselves, the length of the marriage, the existence dependents, and the ability of the higher income spouse to pay.

With this in mind, how is alimony deserved when no one can be in the wrong?


----------



## Duguesclin

Kivlor said:


> In a system of "no fault", the court isn't supposed to take into account these circumstances. The court is supposed to consider whether or not the lower income (or SAH, in some marriages) spouse can provide the same level of comfort to themselves, the length of the marriage, the existence dependents, and the ability of the higher income spouse to pay.
> 
> With this in mind, how is alimony deserved when no one can be in the wrong?


I do not understand what you are asking.


----------



## Kivlor

Duguesclin said:


> I do not understand what you are asking.


You keep appealing to emotion based on examples of a horrible abusive husband, who should have to pay alimony.

The law does not care about the circumstances of the divorce in determining alimony.

It is specifically forbidden from doing so.

In the current no-fault divorce system, how do you justify alimony.


----------



## jld

Kivlor said:


> You keep appealing to emotion based on examples of a horrible abusive husband, who should have to pay alimony.
> 
> The law does not care about the circumstances of the divorce in determining alimony.
> 
> It is specifically forbidden from doing so.
> 
> In the current no-fault divorce system, how do you justify alimony.


I don't think Dug is appealing to emotion. I think he feels that any way a divorce happens, the dependent spouse, particularly a SAHM, is entitled to alimony.


----------



## bfree

jld said:


> I don't think Dug is appealing to emotion. I think he feels that any way a divorce happens, the dependent spouse, particularly a SAHP, is entitled to alimony.


Fixed that for you. Gender shouldn't matter.


----------



## Duguesclin

bfree said:


> Fixed that for you. Gender shouldn't matter.


I think gender matters. The vast majority of stay at home parents are women. We do not need to be politically correct.

Alimony is primarily a woman's welfare issue.


----------



## Duguesclin

agenda said:


> That's changing.
> 
> There are a LOT of women who would not agree with you.


What is changing, guys want to stay home and raise kids? I think it is more anecdotal than a real trend.


----------



## Duguesclin

agenda said:


> More women are choosing careers versus staying at home.


I agree with this. But those that make the choice to stay home still need the protection.


----------



## bfree

Duguesclin said:


> I think gender matters. The vast majority of stay at home parents are women. We do not need to be politically correct.
> 
> Alimony is primarily a woman's welfare issue.


Sorry. Open your eyes. Things are changing...fast. Just because you're born with a womb instead of a penis doesn't mean you should be entitled to anything extra. And yes I also believe women should be treated equally in every way. Equal pay, equal risk in military service, equal parental rights, and equal in court.


----------



## bfree

agenda said:


> That's changing.
> 
> There are a LOT of women who would not agree with you.


My wife for one.


----------



## bfree

Duguesclin said:


> What is changing, guys want to stay home and raise kids? I think it is more anecdotal than a real trend.


I personally know of four SAHP that are men. You need to get out more.


----------



## bfree

Duguesclin said:


> I agree with this. But those that make the choice to stay home still need the protection.


Agreed. Women AND men.


----------



## bfree

In light of the recent discussion concerning gender roles in alimony awards I thought this article in Forbes Magazine might be relevant.

Of the 400,000 people in the United States receiving post-divorce spousal maintenance, just 3 percent were men, according to Census figures. Yet 40 percent of households are headed by female breadwinners — suggesting that hundreds of thousands of men are eligible for alimony, yet don’t receive it.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/emmajohnson/2014/11/20/why-do-so-few-men-get-alimony/#11dd725123c2


----------



## Erudite

Actually courts have a lot of discretion. Firstly the courts look at the length of marriage, they look at the education of both spouses, the value of assets which are joint property, the amount of child support if there are children, the future earning potential etc etc by taking emotion out of the equation they can be very fair and when children are involved can serve as an objective authority. Then the courts can decide the amount and the length of any support given.

The truth is many people balk at ANY support no matter the length or duration because of emotion with very little common decency. People paying alimony should acknowledge the need that the lower income spouse has and their own role in creating that need. The one receiving aid should acknowledge that aid given to them does impact the other person's finances and not be greedy.

Asking for absurd amounts for frivolous things refusing to work so as to avoid responsibility is seen negatively by the courts. These are things that can land you in contempt of court very quickly for wasting the court's time.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## SimplyAmorous

Shoto1984 said:


> Sorry for the cynicism, *but I see alimony as just another nail in the coffin of marriage. Obviously I'm jaded from my experience, but I would never get married again nor would I encourage a young person to do so. The likelihood of a good return on your "investment" is just too low and the social stigma of having children out of "wedlock" has all but disappeared. There's just no reason anymore* and thus I'm leaving this board forever.... ok not that last part :grin2:


A doggone shame.. but I actually agree with you !! and I say this feeling Marriage is a beautiful thing, or should be.


----------



## EllisRedding

Duguesclin said:


> You seem to identify with the CEO who thinks his sneaky employees are trying to get free money by faking injuries.
> 
> Again I put great value in a stay at home mom and I put my money where my mouth is.


Employees faking injuries happens all the time lol. Companies actually hire PI to investigate employees on workers comp. I know for a fact that some fire departments hours were cut so the guys there would rotate through "injuries" so the "injured" could get paid and the other guys could still get their hours as well.



bfree said:


> I personally know of four SAHP that are men. You need to get out more.


I don't know a lot of SAHPs in general but with the ones I do know there is definitely SAHDs in there.


----------



## Kivlor

jld said:


> I don't think Dug is appealing to emotion. I think he feels that any way a divorce happens, the dependent spouse, particularly a SAHM, is entitled to alimony.


This is what an appeal to emotion fallacy is:










This is Dug's argument:



Duguesclin said:


> Is it fair for a worthless alcoholic man who has been living off his wife for many years to get alimony, no. Is it just to have this man in this very unlikely situation to receive alimony if it means the woman that has given 20 years of her life to her family will receive alimony from her abusive husband, yes.


Which is appealing to emotion. It is manipulative. And it fails when someone analyzes it logically.

As we have already covered, because we live in a "no-fault divorce" system, a judge is not allowed to look at whether or not a spouse was a scum-bag. It is irrelevant. 

Fallacies are powerful rhetorical tools. And I give you both credit for being quite adept at them.


----------



## Trickster

jld said:


> I would expect lifetime alimony in the extremely unlikely event I were ever divorced. I have been home for two decades bringing up five children, breastfeeding and homeschooling them just as my husband wanted. Those are years I could have been working and building a career.
> 
> My willingness to follow him on foreign assignments allowed him to build his experience base and get the job he has now, while still enjoying having a family. I would think it quite unfair for that contribution to not be acknowledged.


This is the reason that frustrates me. My wife had many different jobs before our daughter was born. Even with a bachlors degree, she never had a real career. We both agreed that she would stay at home for a short time. Less than a year. Even then, during that time, the agreement was that she work part-time to stay in the work force. That never happened and she stayed home for about 9 years. Now, she earns about what she did 20 years ago and has no skills to earn a livng. She wasn't paying her way before and she can't now.

However, being that I knew she was at home with our daughter, I was able to work long hours, including weekends. I had to! I make a decent living being self-employed, but it took a while to build my business. I don't think I would have the same success if she had a full time job all these years.

I begged and pleaded for years for her to go back to work. She's had several recently, but quit them all. She's been at the same job for over a year now, but it's not enough.

I have no idea what is reasonable for spousal support. I have no retirement and although I make good money, it goes to pay off debt. If my wife were to move out, I would be just fine financially taking care of my daughter. I would just have to adjust my schedule in order to spend time with her and I would make a little less money. Our daughter is almost a teenager and she can be home by herself now. At this point, My wife is more of a liability than an asset. I just don't have the heart to kick her to the curb.


----------



## EleGirl

EleGirl said:


> If the kids have a safe home to live in, clothing, food, and activities, medical care, etc. then the money is being spent on the children.
> 
> If they do not have these things, then the parent who received child support is negligent and the paying parent needs to gather evidence and go back to court.





sillysophie said:


> Seriously? The custodial parent is negligent if they can't provide their children a decent standard of living when they only make $600 a month and the NCP is only giving them $40 a month CS per child? You're really making an assumption that CS is always a decent amount of money. What if NEITHER parent has a decent income, or the NCP is disabled or unemployed? Or better yet in jail for drugs, which seems to be the common problem in our school district...the NCP is in jail, the CP is struggling just to get by, and it's the kids who lose.


I think that I did not state my point well enough. I was not talking about situations in which the parents are too poor to provide a decent standard of living, or a parent was disabled, in jail, etc.

What I was addressing is the case that most use as the strawman to attack paying child support. It goes something like this. Man pays his ex $500 a month in child support. The ex buys a car, of some nice clothing, etc. And then the ex-husband (payee) complains that she is spending the child support on herself and not their child(ren). As long as the children are living in a standard of living that meets their parent’s income levels then the custodian parent (who receives child support) is not negligent. Of course getting child support will free up some of the custodial parent’s income and so that parent might be able to buy somethings for themselves with that money.


----------



## theworkwidow

Wow! I'm new here and I've just been skimming through this thread but wow what an emotional issue with a ton of different responses!

Until recently, divorce was not a word in my personal vocabulary. It's still not something I want to happen although I'm starting to see it as a possibility. If we divorced, I would be entitled to alimony (he makes $300 grand to my $50 grand) but I would never ask for it as long as he paid child support without a fight and I think I would probably ask that he make the mortgage payments as well, at least until we could sell our current house, since I never wanted a $500,000 house to begin with. I'd be more concerned with making sure my son retained health insurance and that my husband be responsible for setting aside money for his future college expenses. I WOULD make sure I got part of his corporate pension though, since we decided together that his retirement plan was good enough that I didn't need one of my own.


----------



## Kivlor

EleGirl said:


> I think that I did not state my point well enough. I was not talking about situations in which the parents are too poor to provide a decent standard of living, or a parent was disabled, in jail, etc.
> 
> What I was addressing is the case that most use as the strawman to attack paying child support. It goes something like this. Man pays his ex $500 a month in child support. The ex buys a car, of some nice clothing, etc. And then the ex-husband (payee) complains that she is spending the child support on herself and not their child(ren). As long as the children are living in a standard of living that meets their parent’s income levels then the custodian parent (who receives child support) is not negligent. Of course getting child support will free up some of the custodial parent’s income and so that parent might be able to buy somethings for themselves with that money.


Explain how pointing out that cash is fungible is a Straw Man for me Ele.


----------

