# Alimony and its purpose



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

Can you please just help me to justify alimony as paid by men to their ex-wives. 

I am asking because I am sure that if i were to divorce, and our then assets are shared at 50% each, I really would not want to keep in any sort of touch with the person I have just terminated all responsibility with. I accept that our children would need looking after and if I am looking after them in my house there would be a cost implication and the ex would need to contribute 50%. That is towards the children. I am asking about money for me. 

I do not see what the ex would be getting for his money from me
I do not see whether it is a punishment of a gratuity
I cannot work out its purpose. 
I do not see why the money is paid after sharing assets at 50-50.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

Per the family law website https://family.findlaw.com/divorce/spousal-support-alimony-basics.html

*The Purpose for Alimony

The purpose of alimony is to limit any unfair economic effects of a divorce by providing a continuing income to a non-wage-earning or lower-wage-earning spouse. Part of the justification is that one spouse may have chosen to forego a career to support the family, and needs time to develop job skills to support themselves. Another purpose may be to help a spouse continue the standard of living they had during marriage.*

How the Amount of Alimony is Determined

Unlike*child support, which in most states is mandated according to very specific monetary guidelines, courts have broad discretion in determining whether to award spousal support and, if so, how much and for how long. The Uniform Marriage and Divorce Act, on which many states' spousal support statutes are based, recommends that courts consider the following factors in making*decisions about alimony awards:

The age, physical condition, emotional state, and financial condition of the former spouses;
The length of time the recipient would need for education or training to become self-sufficient;
The couple's standard of living during the marriage;
The length of the marriage; and
The ability of the payer spouse to support the recipient and still support himself or herself.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

MaiChi said:


> Can you please just help me to justify alimony as paid by men to their ex-wives.
> 
> I am asking because I am sure that if i were to divorce, and our then assets are shared at 50% each, I really would not want to keep in any sort of touch with the person I have just terminated all responsibility with. I accept that our children would need looking after and if I am looking after them in my house there would be a cost implication and the ex would need to contribute 50%. That is towards the children. I am asking about money for me.
> 
> ...


Because the earning potential I have is as much my wife's hard work as it is mine. I very much would not be in the position I'm in without her continual support, kicks in the ass, patience, and encouragement.

My success is not just mine. She is my partner in all things.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

Marduk said:


> Because the earning potential I have is as much my wife's hard work as it is mine. I very much would not be in the position I'm in without her continual support, kicks in the ass, patience, and encouragement.
> 
> My success is not just mine. She is my partner in all things.


But my success is partly my husband's and yet I would not pay him alimony. Why is that?

Also would the court give me the option to refuse it? 

My friends was offered a job today and she says she wants it for what it offers in experience, byt she will do it for free two days per week because if she got paid it would mess up her alimony.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

MaiChi said:


> But my success is partly my husband's and yet I would not pay him alimony. Why is that?


I don't know. Am I a mind reader, your financial advisor, or a judge? How am I supposed to answer that?


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Honestly, it varies HUGELY from state to state. You could research your state's family law statutes to get a good idea of the state's philosophy behind it's laws.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

MaiChi said:


> Marduk said:
> 
> 
> > Because the earning potential I have is as much my wife's hard work as it is mine. I very much would not be in the position I'm in without her continual support, kicks in the ass, patience, and encouragement.
> ...


I think @Marduk meant economic success. 

Even if they are the lower income earner, alimony is not typically awarded to people with successful careers and healthy incomes. The few times I've seen this happen is when there is very large disparity in incomes or income potentials, i.e. a doctor and a teacher.


----------



## Ragnar Ragnasson (Mar 4, 2018)

Marduk said:


> Because the earning potential I have is as much my wife's hard work as it is mine. I very much would not be in the position I'm in without her continual support, kicks in the ass, patience, and encouragement.
> 
> My success is not just mine. She is my partner in all things.


But not all spousal relationships are the same. Sometimes a H or W has achieved financial success despite the continual grief from their SO about long hours why are they working so hard questioning, self sacrifice of hobbies, time away from the SO, etc.

So that same formula cannot be applied in both cases where foundational backgrounds differ so much.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

Lila said:


> MaiChi said:
> 
> 
> > Marduk said:
> ...


I agree with that except where I live, teachers make more than doctors.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

RebuildingMe said:


> I agree with that except where I live, teachers make more than doctors.


Wow. That's unusual.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

Marduk said:


> I don't know. Am I a mind reader, your financial advisor, or a judge? How am I supposed to answer that?


Well in UK people have careers just because they are people and not because they have a gender. As women, we are well past gender financial politics other than this alimony thing which surprised me when I found out men were paying it. Which country are you in and are women not allowed to work?


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Lila said:


> I think @Marduk meant economic success.
> 
> Even if they are the lower income earner, alimony is not typically awarded to people with successful careers and healthy incomes. The few times I've seen this happen is when there is very large disparity in incomes or income potentials, i.e. a doctor and a teacher.


Yup, for example my wife stayed at home with the kids for a number of years while I launched my career. Her idea, but I agreed to it.

If we were to divorce now, even if she is working, could I honestly say that the vast differential in our incomes (think more than 10x) would be fair? I mean, she took on a lot staying home - not just childcare, but having space to make sure I had my **** together, strategizing with my career, work travel, late nights, etc.


----------



## Marduk (Jul 16, 2010)

Ragnar Ragnasson said:


> But not all spousal relationships are the same. Sometimes a H or W has achieved financial success despite the continual grief from their SO about long hours why are they working so hard questioning, self sacrifice of hobbies, time away from the SO, etc.
> 
> So that same formula cannot be applied in both cases where foundational backgrounds differ so much.


I watched my father build a very large company and make the same claim.

Only he casually neglected to remember that we all helped launch it, we all held down the fort without him for decades, and watched him nearly work himself to death in the process.

What was "continual grief" to him was us trying to save him from himself. And the fact of the matter is that that company wasn't just launched on his back, it was launched on ours, too.

That didn't fly in court and it didn't fly with me. He's since changed his thinking about many things, and we have a great relationship now. I never saw a dime of it and never wanted to, but my mom sure deserved what she got and more.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

MaiChi said:


> Marduk said:
> 
> 
> > I don't know. Am I a mind reader, your financial advisor, or a judge? How am I supposed to answer that?
> ...


Alimony is gender neutral. Men are eligible for it if they were the lower income (or non income) earner.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

MaiChi said:


> But my success is partly my husband's and yet I would not pay him alimony. Why is that?
> 
> Also would the court give me the option to refuse it?
> 
> My friends was offered a job today and she says she wants it for what it offers in experience, byt she will do it for free two days per week because if she got paid it would mess up her alimony.


If you earned more than your husband and he requested alimony in a divorce he would get alimony if he qualified under state law. Despite what some would have us believe, alimony/spousal support laws really are gender neutral. The higher wage earner can and will be required to pay the no/lower wage earner alimony regardless of gender.

Alimony is not a requirement. Yes, a spouse can refuse alimony in a divorce.

Alimony is calculated based on income. If her income goes up or his income goes down the amount paid will be adjusted through the courts.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

Lila said:


> Alimony is gender neutral. Men are eligible for it if they were the lower income (or non income) earner.


That is very good. 
What I am hearing is that 50 50 assets sharing is not fair in some cases. The one who might have neglected their career for whatever reason, should be getting more assets to cover for the future earnings of the other, if total disassociation is to be achieved at divorce.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

MaiChi said:


> Well in UK people have careers just because they are people and not because they have a gender. As women, we are well past gender financial politics other than this alimony thing which surprised me when I found out men were paying it. Which country are you in and are women not allowed to work?


I'm in the U.S. Of course women here work. However, we don't have the social welfare programs you in the UK have. Here, if a person sacrifices their career progression to build the family and become the low/no earning spouse they would be basically in poverty after a divorce without alimony to supplement their income. The basic idea is if Spouse A sacrificed earning potential, retirement savings, and Social Security contribution so that Spouse B could have the freedom to earn then Spouse B should compensate Spouse A for that sacrifice.


----------



## Tasorundo (Apr 1, 2012)

MaiChi, if your friend is really not getting paid what she should so that her Ex still has to pay alimony, she is a garbage human and you should distance yourself.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Alimony - and to some extent pretty much everything that happens after a divorce has one purpose.
To keep the separated spouse from engaging in a new relationship. Money is the favored method of exerting power, but other methods are also used. 
The abandoned spouse(s) feel the need to continue the control that existed during marriage. A regular payment is a good way to force regular continued control of a former spouse.

My main reason for this belief is that there is no such thing as divorce insurance or paternity insurance. If it was just about money or lifestyle see " to help a spouse continue the standard of living they had during marriage" then an insurance policy would satisfy the need and there is no shortage of insurance companies willing to underwrite anything. There is no shortage of legislators willing to require insurance. But mysteriously there is a lack of insurance right here where it could actually do some good. 

The bitter Irony in the whole equation is just this. Marriage is enough all by itself to dissuade a thinking person from remarrying. Only limerence leads us to repeating the mistake. There should be a pill for that.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MaiChi said:


> Can you please just help me to justify alimony as paid by men to their ex-wives.
> 
> I am asking because I am sure that if i were to divorce, and our then assets are shared at 50% each, I really would not want to keep in any sort of touch with the person I have just terminated all responsibility with. I accept that our children would need looking after and if I am looking after them in my house there would be a cost implication and the ex would need to contribute 50%. That is towards the children. I am asking about money for me.
> 
> ...


I see that someone gave you a legal definition or something close. I wanted to throw my 2 cents in. 

I've always thought it was for the housewife who could not even support herself and was cash strapped. I thought it was an opportunity to help her get an education or training to get her started into being able to have her own decent life. I never thought it was supposed to be used as punishment, but it surely can be, depending on his ability to pay and how much/long the payments are for. 

So, if you need to get a career or even a few classes to brush up, and he can help with expenses for a little while, it's probably worth getting. If it's going to enable a spouse to party, seems a punishment. See what I mean? Plus, make it as short a time span and as little as possible. Then, it isn't so hard for him to take.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

MJJEAN said:


> If you earned more than your husband and he requested alimony in a divorce he would get alimony if he qualified under state law. Despite what some would have us believe, alimony/spousal support laws really are gender neutral. The higher wage earner can and will be required to pay the no/lower wage earner alimony regardless of gender.
> 
> Alimony is not a requirement. Yes, a spouse can refuse alimony in a divorce.
> 
> Alimony is calculated based on income. If her income goes up or his income goes down the amount paid will be adjusted through the courts.


I have learnt a lot today. Interesting points.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> I see that someone gave you a legal definition or something close. I wanted to throw my 2 cents in.
> 
> I've always thought it was for the housewife who could not even support herself and was cash strapped. I thought it was an opportunity to help her get an education or training to get her started into being able to have her own decent life. I never thought it was supposed to be used as punishment, but it surely can be, depending on his ability to pay and how much/long the payments are for.
> 
> So, if you need to get a career or even a few classes to brush up, and he can help with expenses for a little while, it's probably worth getting. If it's going to enable a spouse to party, seems a punishment. See what I mean? Plus, make it as short a time span and as little as possible. Then, it isn't so hard for him to take.


So refusing a paid two day job because it would mess up alimony income but still doing the job as a volunteer, how does that look?


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Mr. Nail said:


> Alimony - and to some extent pretty much everything that happens after a divorce has one purpose.
> To keep the separated spouse from engaging in a new relationship. Money is the favored method of exerting power, but other methods are also used.
> The abandoned spouse(s) feel the need to continue the control that existed during marriage. A regular payment is a good way to force regular continued control of a former spouse.
> 
> ...


Family law: laws of the state governing family matters, including divorce and paternity.

Actually, the purpose of alimony and child support is so the STATE isn't supporting women and children after divorce or in single parent homes.


----------



## RebuildingMe (Aug 18, 2019)

It sounds like your friend refuses to better herself with a job in order to punish her ex to keep him paying. Unhealthy resentment that will only hurt her when the alimony ends.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

MaiChi said:


> So refusing a paid two day job because it would mess up alimony income but still doing the job as a volunteer, how does that look?


It depends on how much she's making. If her alimony is more than what she's making, then it would be dumb for her to accept pay for the job. She can still build her resume by volunteering without pay. 

This isn't a punishment issue. It's being smart about her income which in this case is alimony.


----------



## Mr. Nail (Apr 26, 2011)

Livvie said:


> Family law: laws of the state governing family matters, including divorce and paternity.
> 
> Actually, the purpose of alimony and child support is so the STATE isn't supporting women and children after divorce or in single parent homes.


Actually, the state usually requires insurance for any other situation that would result in major income loss.
Workman's compensation insurance.
Auto insurance.

An allows insurance in other areas.
Life insurance.
Accidental death and dismemberment insurance.
Major medical insurance.

Why is insurance missing here? I smell a rat! Also I am aware that these laws were written largely by men.


----------



## MovingForward (Jan 19, 2017)

i understand the concept of Alimony but i believe the system is seriously abused by many who do not 'need' it, the benefit of the marriage should end when the marriage ends, i am one of those who made money in spite of my XW not because if, I would have been financially better off had she not been spending it all she dragged me down and actually once divorce was settled was way better off financially than I was despite me being the one who pushed to make the money. Lucky for me my 3 years is almost up but it has been a big burden to me.


----------



## uhtred (Jun 22, 2016)

I think the motivation for alimony is that many marriages are asymmetric - one person has a work career, the other raises children and takes care of he house. The total effort put in is similar, but after a divorce, the person with a career can continue to earn money while the other can have a very difficult time finding income. 

This can lead to a situation where the money earning person can "trade in" their spouse for a new one at very little cost, while the non-earning spouse is stuck, leading to a power imbalance.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MaiChi said:


> So refusing a paid two day job because it would mess up alimony income but still doing the job as a volunteer, how does that look?


Selfish, uncaring, vengeful, still wanting some kind of tie to the old marriage/husband

It's sort of like saying welfare is my job, and I'm going to keep those living with me jobless to continue to receive the most benefits I can get. 


She needs to either get a full time job or an education and then a full time job.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

MaiChi said:


> But my success is partly my husband's and yet I would not pay him alimony. Why is that?
> 
> Also would the court give me the option to refuse it?
> 
> My friends was offered a job today and she says she wants it for what it offers in experience, byt she will do it for free two days per week because if she got paid it would mess up her alimony.


Why do you think that you would not pay him alimony?


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

MaiChi said:


> Well in UK people have careers just because they are people and not because they have a gender. As women, we are well past gender financial politics other than this alimony thing which surprised me when I found out men were paying it. Which country are you in and are women not allowed to work?


Alimony is paid to the lower income spouse by the higher income spouse. In the USA, it does not matter the gender of either, the higher paid spouse would pay if it was warranted.

Alimony came into being because at one time all of a woman's assets upon marriage passed to her husband... basically she lot all of her assets - except jewelry and a few small things which is why some wealthy woman bought & inherited a lot of expensive jewelry. It was her safety net.

There was a time when very few women worked, most were SAHM's. Plus, in those days women could not find jobs that paid more than the bottom of the barrel wages. So basically a divorced woman had no way to support herself much less her children if there was a divorce.

Today, now that most married women work and about half of married women earn as much or more than their husbands, only about 15% of all divorces end up with alimony ordered. The average alimony payment is $300 a month and on average lasts 3 years. It's basically a rehabilitative support so a SAHM/SAHD or lower income spouse can get back on her feet and start a job/career.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

MaiChi said:


> That is very good.
> What I am hearing is that 50 50 assets sharing is not fair in some cases. The one who might have neglected their career for whatever reason, should be getting more assets to cover for the future earnings of the other, if total disassociation is to be achieved at divorce.


Here in the US there are some states have "community property" laws and some have "equitable distribution" laws.

With "community property" all assets accumulated during marriage are split 50/50. Assets earned before marriage are sole/separate property and do not get split during a divorce. Generally it does not matter if an asset is in one spouse's name only. if it was acquired during the marriage, it's community property. If a person mixed community assets/income with a sole/separate asset (like putting money earned during the marriage is a savings account they had prior to marriage) then the asset converts from sole property to community property. Another example of this is a home that was purchased by one spouse prior to marriage but then the couple paid the mortgage payment for years out of their income after marriage. The home's equity is usually split 50/50 even though it's only in one spouse's name.

With "equitable distribution" laws basically the court decides what they believe is fair and equitable based on the circumstances of each divorcing couple. They start at the point of the community property model but then adjust. For example a 60 year old woman who has been a SAHM/SAHW most of her adult life will get alimony and maybe even a larger share of the assets because there is no way she will ever be able to earn enough to come even close to her marital life-style.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

MaiChi said:


> But my success is partly my husband's and yet I would not pay him alimony. Why is that?
> 
> Also would the court give me the option to refuse it?
> 
> My friends was offered a job today and she says she wants it for what it offers in experience, byt she will do it for free two days per week because if she got paid it would mess up her alimony.


Is the pay your friend is being offered just enough to mess up her alimony but not enough to replace it?


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Lila said:


> It depends on how much she's making. If her alimony is more than what she's making, then it would be dumb for her to accept pay for the job. She can still build her resume by volunteering without pay.
> 
> This isn't a punishment issue. It's being smart about her income which in this case is alimony.


It's not as much smart as being decitful. The lower earner has the ability to earn more but chosen not to because the higher earner is helping to support the person. Alimony is intended to help a person until they can support themselves and maintain the ever vague "standard of living" statement lawyer's love. If the courts found out the person refuses pay but volunteered they would imput the wage they could have earned and reduced the alimony amount.


----------



## frusdil (Sep 5, 2013)

We don't have alimony in Australia at all. 

I can see why in some cases its granted in the US, such as in the case of a stay at home parent, giving them the chance to better their job prospects through education etc. but I've also heard some horror stories out of the US of exorbitant amounts of child support AND lifetime alimony being granted. That is outrageous.

It shouldn't last for more than 3-5 years max.

I know of only 1 instance over here where it was granted (it's called spousal support over here) and that was the case of a stay at home dad of a severely disabled child. This child requires 24 hour care and Mum happily pays support to Dad to provide that. As would I in that situation, but that's about the only one.


----------



## WorldsApart (May 5, 2011)

Lila said:


> It depends on how much she's making. If her alimony is more than what she's making, then it would be dumb for her to accept pay for the job. She can still build her resume by volunteering without pay.
> 
> This isn't a punishment issue. It's being smart about her income which in this case is alimony.


Part of the perverse problem with Alimony- there's no incentive for the receiver to improve their income until after the almony runs out.
Add the almost complete erasure of social stigmatism related to sleeping with/living with someone out of wedlock, the scales have definitely tipped towards the receiver.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

WorldsApart said:


> Part of the perverse problem with Alimony- there's no incentive for the receiver to improve their income until after the almony runs out.
> Add the almost complete erasure of social stigmatism related to sleeping with/living with someone out of wedlock, the scales have definitely tipped towards the receiver.


Many states as starting to implement the idea that the person who receives alimony has to work towards becoming self supporting. For example, California is a state that is famous for life-long alimony now allows the payor of alimony to sue to change/end alimony if they can prove that their ex is not making a good faith effort toward being self-supporting,


----------



## WorldsApart (May 5, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> Many states as starting to implement the idea that the person who receives alimony has to work towards becoming self supporting. For example, California is a state that is famous for life-long alimony now allows the payor of alimony to sue to change/end alimony if they can prove that their ex is not making a good faith effort toward being self-supporting,


Certainly better than lifetime alimony, but by definition that would be an expensive and difficult thing to prove for most payors, just like it's difficult to prove cohabitation.


----------



## Lila (May 30, 2014)

honcho said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > It depends on how much she's making. If her alimony is more than what she's making, then it would be dumb for her to accept pay for the job. She can still build her resume by volunteering without pay.
> ...


I am not familiar with alimony but if someone was getting $20k per year in alimony but could work 2 days a week for $10k, would they lose all of the alimony or just the difference? If it's an all or nothing then I can understand why people would not have incentive to work for less.


----------



## honcho (Oct 5, 2013)

Lila said:


> I am not familiar with alimony but if someone was getting $20k per year in alimony but could work 2 days a week for $10k, would they lose all of the alimony or just the difference? If it's an all or nothing then I can understand why people would not have incentive to work for less.


The difference in theory. The biggest issue with alimony is most states have no set guidelines for it. It's very much up to the whims of the judge. Judges can rule just about anything they want as far as alimony goes. 

Another truly annoying game in the alimony world is the remarriage bit. If you remarry alimony stops so no one ever gets married.....till alimony ends. I've got a friend who's paid 9 years worth of alimony to his ex who has lived with her boyfriend the entire time, had kids and essentially lived as hubby/wife but won't marry. He's got one more year to pay and guess who has a romantic wedding in Paris planned for a month after the last alimony payment???


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

WorldsApart said:


> Certainly better than lifetime alimony, but by definition that would be an expensive and difficult thing to prove for most payors, just like it's difficult to prove cohabitation.


There are many cases that have gone to court and won on this. I am aware of several divorces in California that never got to court because knew that the person getting alimony was doing nothing to become self sufficient. If a person is not getting any training, has not gotten a job, etc. it's pretty easy to prove that they are not doing what needs to be done to become self sufficient.


----------



## EleGirl (Dec 3, 2011)

Lila said:


> I am not familiar with alimony but if someone was getting $20k per year in alimony but could work 2 days a week for $10k, would they lose all of the alimony or just the difference? If it's an all or nothing then I can understand why people would not have incentive to work for less.


Since the court decided that the receiver needed $20K per year, they would most likely reduce the amount of alimony by $10K. But then again it depends on the judge.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Alimony should definately have a set time limit. I can't imagine why it would be paid after maybe a year and only then to stay at home parents or part time spouses. Or possibly if married young and passed up college for a family then I could understand 4 years.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

honcho said:


> Lila said:
> 
> 
> > I am not familiar with alimony but if someone was getting $20k per year in alimony but could work 2 days a week for $10k, would they lose all of the alimony or just the difference? If it's an all or nothing then I can understand why people would not have incentive to work for less.
> ...


That is absolutely deplorable.


----------



## WorldsApart (May 5, 2011)

honcho said:


> The difference in theory. The biggest issue with alimony is most states have no set guidelines for it. It's very much up to the whims of the judge. Judges can rule just about anything they want as far as alimony goes.
> 
> Another truly annoying game in the alimony world is the remarriage bit. If you remarry alimony stops so no one ever gets married.....till alimony ends. I've got a friend who's paid 9 years worth of alimony to his ex who has lived with her boyfriend the entire time, had kids and essentially lived as hubby/wife but won't marry. He's got one more year to pay and guess who has a romantic wedding in Paris planned for a month after the last alimony payment???


I know several women on this plan as well.


----------



## WorldsApart (May 5, 2011)

EleGirl said:


> There are many cases that have gone to court and won on this. I am aware of several divorces in California that never got to court because knew that the person getting alimony was doing nothing to become self sufficient. If a person is not getting any training, has not gotten a job, etc. it's pretty easy to prove that they are not doing what needs to be done to become self sufficient.


Rarely would I say I hope the rest of the country follows California, but in this instance I hope so.
Utah's default is one year of spousal support for every year of marriage.


----------



## 20yr (Apr 19, 2019)

Lila said:


> I am not familiar with alimony but if someone was getting $20k per year in alimony but could work 2 days a week for $10k, would they lose all of the alimony or just the difference? If it's an all or nothing then I can understand why people would not have incentive to work for less.


It can depend on state rules and the type of agreement signed. Some awards are "self-modifying" in that you look at both incomes at end of year to determine the award for next year. Others require going back to court for modification if there is a change in circumstances. In my state for example, alimony is calculated like this: lower earner's income is subtracted from higher earner's income and lower earner gets a % of the difference. The % is based on lifestyle - recipient will not get more than needed to maintain and payor should also be able to maintain lifestyle. Alimony will not be awarded in cases where incomes are similar or where even higher earner is below a certain threshold. Duration of alimony depends on many factors, biggest one is duration of the marriage itself.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

MaiChi said:


> So refusing a paid two day job because it would mess up alimony income but still doing the job as a volunteer, how does that look?


Looks like fraud to me. Looks like some sort of breaking of labor laws as well. Same as I can't work through my lunch. Most businesses take that very seriously. They aren't going to risk a labor law infraction because I would rather work instead of take a lunch. Of course people clock out and work through their lunch sometimes, but they don't do it in front of HR and bosses would never tell HR about an employee who works through their lunch breaks.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> Alimony should definately have a set time limit. I can't imagine why it would be paid after maybe a year and only then to stay at home parents or part time spouses. Or possibly if married young and passed up college for a family then I could understand 4 years.


My idea was time limits but not just that, it would be stepped down each year regardless of circumstance changes. Also, a hard cap on splits for big earning spouses. 

For example, Kobe shouldn't have had to pay that much in the split. I don't know why anyone needs 3 homes and 75 million dollars right up front. As Bill Burr said, she never hit a layup in her life! Hard cap at say 5 million. Seems plenty fair! 

Then for alimony, say it's 10 years payments the starting amount awarded is $100k. Step it down each year after that. $90k 2nd year, $80k third. $70k fourth... You get the idea. This allows more than enough time for the spouse receiving the support to get things back on track with their own earning. It also will put an end somewhat to the remarriage stuff. At least some of that anyway. 

That's what I would do. Any holes in that you guys can think of? Spitballing here...


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

Tasorundo said:


> MaiChi, if your friend is really not getting paid what she should so that her Ex still has to pay alimony, she is a garbage human and you should distance yourself.


I was trying my best to understand the logic of her thinking. It escapes me.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

2ntnuf said:


> Selfish, uncaring, vengeful, still wanting some kind of tie to the old marriage/husband
> 
> It's sort of like saying welfare is my job, and I'm going to keep those living with me jobless to continue to receive the most benefits I can get.
> 
> ...


She is a very educated lady. Problem is not that she cannot get a job. I asked this alimony question based on my friend's reaction to an offer of a job. They really want her and have had her now but she does not want payment from them.


----------



## MaiChi (Jun 20, 2018)

EleGirl said:


> Is the pay your friend is being offered just enough to mess up her alimony but not enough to replace it?


Not sure but its two full days per week and she would earn around £30-35 per hour. which is above full time minimum wage per week. A lot of people live off that alone. She already works another two days per week and is paid for that.

UK law is a little silly in that any second job you get you are taxed heavily


----------



## Buddy400 (Aug 30, 2014)

Marduk said:


> Yup, for example my wife stayed at home with the kids for a number of years while I launched my career. Her idea, but I agreed to it.
> 
> If we were to divorce now, even if she is working, could I honestly say that the vast differential in our incomes (think more than 10x) would be fair? I mean, she took on a lot staying home - not just childcare, but having space to make sure I had my **** together, strategizing with my career, work travel, late nights, etc.


I'm not sure that the "my achievement is my spouse's achievement" is always right. What about two SAHM's who both do the same amount of work but one was married to a high earner and the other to a low earner?

The main reason I think alimony is often justified is when the SAH parent (who stayed home because both partner's decided they should) delays their career, it hurts their long term earnings potential. The spouse who stayed home for 10 years isn't going to be making the money they would if they had worked continuously (one of the main factors behind the "gender pay gap").

I do think, however, that if the SAH cheats on their partner (or something just as bad), that should be taken into consideration. It just doesn't seem right that your spouse cheats on you and leaves taking half of your future earnings.


----------



## 2ntnuf (Jul 14, 2012)

MaiChi said:


> She is a very educated lady. Problem is not that she cannot get a job. I asked this alimony question based on my friend's reaction to an offer of a job. They really want her and have had her now but she does not want payment from them.


From my point of view, that's sad. She is wasting her talent and education. There is nothing wrong with getting paid for work. That's how the world goes 'round.


----------



## 20yr (Apr 19, 2019)

TheDudeLebowski said:


> My idea was time limits but not just that, it would be stepped down each year regardless of circumstance changes. Also, a hard cap on splits for big earning spouses.
> 
> For example, Kobe shouldn't have had to pay that much in the split. I don't know why anyone needs 3 homes and 75 million dollars right up front. As Bill Burr said, she never hit a layup in her life! Hard cap at say 5 million. Seems plenty fair!
> 
> ...


I think it is hard to create a hard-line rule bc it depends on circumstances and there will always be exceptions - disabled spouse or child, for example. 

Marriage is a partnership and both usually make sacrifices. I think the goal of alimony should be to make sure both spouses are able to support themselves going forward. For the lower earning spouse, that may mean some support until they can get further education, get a better job, etc, taking into account the sacrifices they may have made for the marriage. 

In my case, I got off my career track and went in-house and part-time to take care of the kids so my H could work 80 hour weeks and travel to make partner. It is too late for me to ever make the same amount as I would have if I had stayed FT at a law firm too. I don't think it is fair for a higher earning spouse to walk away without giving the lower earning spouse some compensation for that contribution to the partnership. Remember, it's not just the salary - higher earning spouse also has more in his 401k and higher Social Security benefits which would have been shared if we stayed married.

I don't like the idea of a lower-earning spouse shirking work but there are some cases where no alimony or limited alimony is unfair, especially if it has been a long-term marriage.

Regarding remarriage, a new trend is for alimony to get cut in half if recipient remarries. The thought is that this will be good for both parties as people will be less reluctant to remarry.


----------



## TheDudeLebowski (Oct 10, 2017)

20yr said:


> I think it is hard to create a hard-line rule bc it depends on circumstances and there will always be exceptions - disabled spouse or child, for example.
> 
> Marriage is a partnership and both usually make sacrifices. I think the goal of alimony should be to make sure both spouses are able to support themselves going forward. For the lower earning spouse, that may mean some support until they can get further education, get a better job, etc, taking into account the sacrifices they may have made for the marriage.
> 
> ...


I agree with all you said. Sometimes solutions offered to problems do not take into account other issues that are being address with the current system. So hard line rules, the only one I would have is the top earners cap. 10 million even. But that's taking into consideration all things. So if I was a high school kid that just got drafted by the NBA and got a huge contract, and my fiance has a GED, why does she get 75 million in a split?

In your situation, that would all be taken into account. My wife and I, say we split, I dont think I should get anything of her teacher salary you know? Even though I just have a GED. 

I guess then the problem is there's no set law you apply equally across the board so someone is always going to feel shafted. Plus I'm sure they dont want to bog down the courts with all these different variables. 

For the record, I'm totally for alimony for the reasons you explained. No matter what, somebody is going to get shafted here and there. Just trying to think of ways to reduce it from happening as much as possible. I've not looked much into this stuff. Just thinking out loud. I have similar thoughts on welfare that I think would work so I was trying to apply that logic here.


----------



## UpsideDownWorld11 (Feb 14, 2018)

Buddy400 said:


> Marduk said:
> 
> 
> > Yup, for example my wife stayed at home with the kids for a number of years while I launched my career. Her idea, but I agreed to it.
> ...


I agree they shouldn't get a dime then. But I imagine proving someone cheated isn't easy especially when their livlihood is depending on them denying it.


----------



## Pam (Oct 7, 2010)

My husband's first wife was going to wait out the alimony, too, but she proposed that my husband give her 4x the alimony months' in one check "so she could afford to marry the guy she was basically living with". He couldn't sign that check fast enough. She had SO taken him for a big alimony check and child support staying the same until the youngest child was 21. He paid her to get rid of the alimony and paid the child support to the youngest directly after the other two were out on their own.


----------



## CraigBesuden (Jun 20, 2019)

Sometimes a partner agrees to be a housewife or househusband. Without alimony, a separation would be economically unfeasible. So the person who desires a divorce should be given a few years of money to survive a transition to self-sufficiency. Otherwise they are financially trapped and coerced.

In my case, I make more money than the average American family makes. But my wife makes six times more than me. Could she have made that without my support and flexibility? No. Should I receive alimony if we divorced? I’d say no, I don’t need it.

Robin Williams committed suicide due, in part IMHO, California’s lifetime alimony laws. I think three years tops. JMHO.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

MaiChi said:


> Also would the court give me the option to refuse it?


Here in California, you can refuse alimony (and anything to which you'd be due as part of the divorce process). The only thing you cannot permanently refuse is child support, because that is for the children and not either spouse.


----------



## DTO (Dec 18, 2011)

UpsideDownWorld11 said:


> I agree they shouldn't get a dime then. But I imagine proving someone cheated isn't easy especially when their livlihood is depending on them denying it.


I think you hit the nail on the head. Divorce already can be a long drawn-out process with no fault laws and formulas for support and division of assets.

So, the courts don't get involved generally with what happened during the marriage. Issues like "he cheated" and "she squandered marital assets" don't factor in.


----------



## southbound (Oct 31, 2010)

DTO said:


> MaiChi said:
> 
> 
> > Also would the court give me the option to refuse it?
> ...


I have no problem with money going to the kids, but it rarely all goes in that direction. In the years I have been divorced, I have payed my x a boatload of child support. I can assure you it didn’t all go directly to the
Kids. It’s interesting, however, that she is able to get new vehicles every few years and totally rework her house. I guarantee that wouldn’t have happened without child support. I wish there was a better system.


----------

