# Problem with Alimony



## Lon

Was reading a post about a SAHW leaving her husband, and how he should make sure to control his own finances. And it got me to thinking about just how unfair spousal maintenance (Alimony) is, for the vast majority of separations.

I previously have been of the mindset, that if a W stays home in order to support her H's career, then she has sacrificed her future earning potential for the benefit of the family as a unit.

When the W leaves her H, courts tend to use the H's earning potential as a basis to determine Alimony payments, since he has to provide for the same standard of living after separation as before (ie he has to compensate his XW for her undue financial hardship). But what of his loss of her contributions (of maintaining the home and rearing the children) that he suffers post-separation? The H has also made sacrifices in terms of time and bonding opportunities at home in order to provide for the family as a unit, but it seems that sacrfice is not only dismissed by the courts but penalized.

Alimony protects the WAW from the financial consequence of her sacrifice, while creating a situation where the LH not only has to take up the financial liability of her sacrfice, but penalizes him further since he is essentially relegated to maintaining the same income level to provide payments but face additional hardship of doubling the sacrfice of not having opportunities at home to bond with his children.

scenario: SAHM of 2 kids, H works 70 hours a week and earns $120,000 /yr but gets to tuck his kids in every night and bond with them every weekend. SAHM leaves, court determines she is entitled to standard full custody with every other weekend visitation for H, and is granted, say $1000/mo alimony. Post divorce, life looks exactly the same for her, except she is in an apartment rather than a house (probably even easier to keep clean) or else she is still in the house but complaining that she doesn't get enough support payments to cover the mortgage. Post divorce for him, he has to work an additional 6-8 hours a week to pay the increased bills or else move into a small apartment, doesn't see his kids, doesn't have meals or someone to help maintain the home and has even less money left over.

In other words, his ability to maintain the prior standard of living is no longer possible, so why would the courts put such hardship onto him? How is it for the benefit of the children, especially as they will no longer have their father in their daily lives?

For myself, I am post divorce and in an equal parenting arrangement, and while I was married my ex took on many of the domestic duties (or atleast that was my assumption based on her not going back into the workforce, or rather working in the home to be with our child and taking in others to supplement the bills) Under that arrangement I had much higher earning potential than I do now but that was because I chose to stick as close to home as possible. After separation my earning potential dropped much lower than my peers because at the time of my separation I had a 9-5 job in the city with flexible enough benefits to be able to share custody equally.

Had I been more focussed on my career I would have been stuck with that and not had a close bond with my son. It is too bad that courts essentially force breadwinners into that role permanently with alimony when the SAH spouse chooses to leave, it leaves children of divorced couples worse off.


----------



## tainted

And this is why i hate life time alimony. Its banned in some states but it should just be gone all together.

You are right the that system punishes the breadwinner and pigeon-holds them into a position where they are forced to pay for their exspouse's life style but receive no support in return.


----------



## beautiful_seclusion

I only realized in the past few years that alimony was even still a thing. Child support makes sense if you are not doing equal custody but alimony seems so outdated. There's some rare circumstances where I can see it being necessary, but only temporarily. I think part of it is to avoid someone forcing someone to stay in a marriage by ensuring they have no career skills and no job history and so have to put up with anything or else be on the street. But that's really a rare case and only necessary until the stay at home person gets on their feet. 

I would be curious with the rise of stay at home dads if alimony has ever been awarded in the opposite direction? Does infidelity or who wants the divorce affect it?

But yeah, I think it's often unfair except in a few circumstances and certainly shouldn't be forever. Even if you do choose to sacrifice your career, you have to be aware it may not last forever. I could never imagine asking my stbx to support me once we are divorced. I am an adult and can make my own money! So I can see getting someone back on their feet, until they get a job that they can survive on, or a little longer in some extreme cases, but certainly not lifetime.


----------



## Thor

In my state, using your hypothetical SAHM, she would get HALF of the husband's before taxes income FOR LIFE after 20 years of marriage. Up to 20 years of marriage it is 1:1, so at say 15 yrs of marriage she would get $60,000 per year for the next 15 years.

And, she'd get majority of physical custody given the history of her being a SAHM and the husband working long hours. So she would also get child support.

There is no consideration of fault or who files for divorce.

The husband would keep less than half of his income. He would get less than 50% physical custody.

And if the husband wanted to work fewer hours he would still be on the hook for the full amount of alimony and child support, because that was the standard of living his WAW and kids were accustomed to.


----------



## Lon

I know thor, that is the realization I came to just before I wrote this post. Any man who "allows" his wife to be a sahm is doubling down with half his salary, that is some high stakes.

I am glad I never had to play that game.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



beautiful_seclusion said:


> I only realized in the past few years that alimony was even still a thing. Child support makes sense if you are not doing equal custody but alimony seems so outdated.


Spousal support makes sense when the arrangement provides a higher overall standard of living to the earner after separation. But money is only one half of the equation that led to the standard of living. What is not fair is that it is a one sided transaction, the income earner is left to his own when it comes to making ends meet on the homefront. It world be akin to having the ex sahm being required to continue doing nanny duties in his house, in order to meet the same standard of living until he has made the adjustments to be able to do so without the domestic help.

As for child support under equal custody, where I live it is actually based on income differential. So in my case even though I have my son half the time, I still pay child support. And the worst part is my ex's new partner whom lives with her and supports her and my son when she has him earns more than I do. Their combined income is twice as much as mine.


----------



## soccermom2three

Lon said:


> I know thor, that is the realization I came to just before I wrote this post. Any man who "allows" his wife to be a sahm is doubling down with half his salary, that is some high stakes.
> 
> I am glad I never had to play that game.


I can think of a really good reason for lifetime alimony. 

In the case of my parents, my Dad's LTR affair was discovered after almost 24 years of marriage. My mom was SAHM the entire time and never worked outside the home. That was THEIR arrangement. If my Dad hadn't thrown the OW under the bus and my Mom hadn't decided to reconcile, (like she had a choice), my Dad most certainly deserved to pay my Mom lifetime alimony. She kept her end of the bargain, (wedding vows). It's not like she would have been rich and living it up. My Dad owned a blue collar business, we were very middle class. She probably would have had to move in with her sister or parents because she couldn't afford the house we grew up in. There would've been no child support either. My brother and I were both over 18 when the OW came knocking on the door and my mom answered.


----------



## honcho

in my state they look at long term marriages under 20 years and they divide the years by 2. In my scenario I can be liable for 7 years, we have no children. She used to work and made very good money but lost the job by her own fault. I wont get into those details.

She had basically been out of work for 3 years now or very underemployed with her lone part-time job. She hasn't actively seeked a job, just partied and had an affair and left to live with him. If she would have stayed living with him I would be out alimony but now that she was tossed out of his place I am back on the hook for it.

So yes I am prejudice with the whole maintaining a style of living since she voluntarily gave that up to shack up with another guy and its not my fault that relationship didn't work out. My attorney suggested doing some sort of lump sum payment to avoid alimony but given the fact that even if she moved back in with her parents I would be out alimony again. I think I will just do alimony and ride out the hope she finds another boytoy quickly. So at the end I have to reward her for cheating and lying to me. My state is completely no fault so all they look at is an income statement.


----------



## Lon

Soccermom,

Well aside from her share of the community property, you are suggesting that she had zero financial value?

If she chose to leave the marriage, why should she still expect him to continue with his obligations while she gets out of hers? 

Its a two way street, your parents decision to have a one income household meant that while he agreed to provide the financial resources, she provided the domestic ones. Divorce costs both spouses the benefits of the other, what is unfair is for courts to only penalize the income earner.


----------



## Thor

soccermom2three said:


> I can think of a really good reason for lifetime alimony.
> 
> In the case of my parents, my Dad's LTR affair was discovered after almost 24 years of marriage. My mom was SAHM the entire time and never worked outside the home. That was THEIR arrangement.


That is a traditional marriage and is why alimony used to make sense. A SAHM is at risk, so if her husband cheats she has the safety net of alimony to get back on her feet. Now imagine the reverse scenario where the stay at home wife is the one having the affair and then decides to divorce her husband. She gets half his income for life! It would not be justice for the husband to pay alimony for life to his ex-wife, yet that is what happens under no-fault divorce and alimony.

Now imagine the situation where the husband discovers his sahw is cheating. Does he divorce her and pay alimony for life? Does he suck up his pride and say nothing? If he is 10 years from retirement he stands to lose half of everything he has worked for, plus half of his future wages if he rocks the boat. The wife has little penalty for cheating - it almost encourages her to do so because she knows she has a significant bargaining advantage with her husband.

In my state there was a bill up for consideration to account for fault in alimony, even though the divorce would remain no-fault. It would have rectified the situation beautifully. Of course it was shot down.


----------



## caladan

Thor said:


> That is a traditional marriage and is why alimony used to make sense. A SAHM is at risk, so if her husband cheats she has the safety net of alimony to get back on her feet. Now imagine the reverse scenario where the stay at home wife is the one having the affair and then decides to divorce her husband. She gets half his income for life! It would not be justice for the husband to pay alimony for life to his ex-wife, yet that is what happens under no-fault divorce and alimony.
> 
> Now imagine the situation where the husband discovers his sahw is cheating. Does he divorce her and pay alimony for life? Does he suck up his pride and say nothing? If he is 10 years from retirement he stands to lose half of everything he has worked for, plus half of his future wages if he rocks the boat. The wife has little penalty for cheating - it almost encourages her to do so because she knows she has a significant bargaining advantage with her husband.
> 
> In my state there was a bill up for consideration to account for fault in alimony, even though the divorce would remain no-fault. It would have rectified the situation beautifully. Of course it was shot down.


But - in the traditional sense, they both worked for everything, including his wages and his retirement. There's a strong argument that he was able to make the sort of wages he made because his wife took the pressure of raising kids away from him. If that's the case, then yeah, I think he should split all that with her, since the reality is that they both, hand-in-hand, worked to create all the money, regardless of who cheated.

Just my opinion - this fault based alimony is going to open up a whole new can of worms. Divorces will quickly get extremely bitter as everyone starts to try to pass the blame. Lawyers must love it.


----------



## wilderness

caladan said:


> But - in the traditional sense, they both worked for everything, including his wages and his retirement. There's a strong argument that he was able to make the sort of wages he made because his wife took the pressure of raising kids away from him. If that's the case, then yeah, I think he should split all that with her, since the reality is that they both, hand-in-hand, worked to create all the money, regardless of who cheated.
> 
> Just my opinion - this fault based alimony is going to open up a whole new can of worms. Divorces will quickly get extremely bitter as everyone starts to try to pass the blame. Lawyers must love it.


Nope...bitter is when a man is on the hook for lifetime alimony to a woman that cheated and left him for another man that has more money than him.


----------



## caladan

wilderness said:


> Nope...bitter is when a man is on the hook for lifetime alimony to a woman that cheated and left him for another man that has more money than him.


What if the tables were turned?

What if, like most guys today, you worked hard, busted your [email protected] to provide, to get financially independent. If after all this, she goes out, writes a book and makes millions.

If she decides to walk (or you decide to walk), wouldn't you feel you deserve some of those millions?

I personally don't care who walks. I'm for a 50-50 split of existing assets. That said, I would never go into a relationship/partnership that had to do with someone not working.


----------



## wilderness

caladan said:


> What if the tables were turned?
> 
> What if, like most guys today, you worked hard, busted your [email protected] to provide, to get financially independent. If after all this, she goes out, writes a book and makes millions.
> 
> If she decides to walk (or you decide to walk), wouldn't you feel you deserve some of those millions?
> 
> I personally don't care who walks. I'm for a 50-50 split of existing assets. That said, I would never go into a relationship/partnership that had to do with someone not working.


Apples to oranges.


----------



## caladan

wilderness said:


> Apples to oranges.


Oh no, not at all. If you're entitled to half of hers, she too should be entitled to half of yours no?

I understand the outrage, but... I consider it fair.

You don't want her to get half, you don't get married, or you sign a pre-nup. If she didn't divorce you, she would have been entitled to half just by being your wife wouldn't she?


----------



## wilderness

caladan said:


> Oh no, not at all. If you're entitled to half of hers, she too should be entitled to half of yours no?
> 
> I understand the outrage, but... I consider it fair.
> 
> You don't want her to get half, you don't get married, or you sign a pre-nup. If she didn't divorce you, she would have been entitled to half just by being your wife wouldn't she?


Because in your example, the money given was earned during the marriage. In my example, the money given was earned after the divorce. It is flat out ridiculous to have the ability to divorce someone AND get to have them pay you for life for doing so.


----------



## Thor

caladan said:


> I personally don't care who walks. I'm for a 50-50 split of existing assets. That said, I would never go into a relationship/partnership that had to do with someone not working.


I am all for the 50-50 split of existing assets. Yes, the SAHM is central to the man being able to earn. She takes on tons of non-paid duties at home. She could never be the full time mom and the full time housekeeper if she were working. Everyone in the family benefits from her being a SAHM. Just as everyone benefits from his income.

When it comes to alimony though I think there needs to be consideration of fault and circumstances. What if one spouse works for 7 or 8 years to put the other through medical school or other advanced degree, to then be dumped? There should be some kind of alimony to give the one spouse time to get some additional training or to establish a better career. Or if one spouse is stay-at-home and then cheats, there should be no alimony in the future.

And I really dislike permanent alimony.

Another thing I dislike is that the payer is locked into it. Meaning, one cannot change jobs or careers if it involves a temporary reduction in pay. I know pilots who want to go to a better job but would take a 50% pay cut for a few years. They cannot make alimony payments on that lower pay, so they are in effect handcuffed to their current job. Even if someone just hates their career they can't quit because of the mandatory alimony.


----------



## caladan

Ah. Permanent alimony. I apologize - I wasn't referring to that scenario.

Apples and oranges is quite correct.

I still think there should be some form of "equalizer" payment, depending on how long the two have been together, earning abilities (both present and future), etc.


----------



## wilderness

caladan said:


> Ah. Permanent alimony. I apologize - I wasn't referring to that scenario.
> 
> Apples and oranges is quite correct.
> 
> I still think there should be some form of "equalizer" payment, depending on how long the two have been together, earning abilities (both present and future), etc.


Why? If one person wants to break their contract, why should they be paid to do so?


----------



## 827Aug

soccermom2three said:


> I can think of a really good reason for lifetime alimony.
> 
> In the case of my parents, my Dad's LTR affair was discovered after almost 24 years of marriage. My mom was SAHM the entire time and never worked outside the home. That was THEIR arrangement. If my Dad hadn't thrown the OW under the bus and my Mom hadn't decided to reconcile, (like she had a choice), my Dad most certainly deserved to pay my Mom lifetime alimony. She kept her end of the bargain, (wedding vows). It's not like she would have been rich and living it up. My Dad owned a blue collar business, we were very middle class. She probably would have had to move in with her sister or parents because she couldn't afford the house we grew up in. There would've been no child support either. My brother and I were both over 18 when the OW came knocking on the door and my mom answered.


That's essentially the boat I've ended up in. My in-laws wouldn't hear of me working once we had children. So, I spent years being a SAHM. I was very supportive of my husband's career. My family even arranged financing for his own business. The business was very successful and we had a lot of money.

But then we lost everything because my husband decided to be "Sugar Daddy" to a bunch of twenty-something-year-old tramps. He robbed our whole family of many things. After 23 years of marriage I deserved better than that. 

Sure, I have a 4 year degree. However, it is essentially useless now. I didn't do continuing education for 20+ years. My degree is in business administration (Accounting). Who would hire me after what my husband did to OUR business? He ruined me! In addition to that, I was written out for disability in 2009. But guess what? I'm not eligible for disability payments because I didn't work enough to earn "credits" through SSA.

Yeah, I get alimony. And I deserve every penny I get. I also get very tired of the negative stigma attached to being the recipient of alimony. Being a SAHM was a mutual decision. Furthermore, I honored my marriage vows. Alimony needs to be based on individual case scenarios--"One size does not fit all" where alimony is concerned.


----------



## caladan

wilderness said:


> Why? If one person wants to break their contract, why should they be paid to do so?


I consider alimony based on say - duration of marriage, to be part of the marriage contract.

But that's just me. I believe a marriage is obligatory, and should end when least one person wants it to. I don't really believe in a mandatory, lifelong marriage against one's will.


----------



## wilderness

caladan said:


> I consider alimony based on say - duration of marriage, to be part of the marriage contract.
> 
> But that's just me. I believe a marriage is obligatory, and should end when least one person wants it to. I don't really believe in a mandatory, lifelong marriage against one's will.


Unfortunately that is not the agreement that modern day marriage is predicated upon. You may 'believe' it shouldn't be this way, but it factually_ is_ this way. ('it' being defined as a lifelong marriage)

*Until death do us part.*


----------



## caladan

wilderness said:


> Unfortunately that is not the agreement that modern day marriage is predicated upon. You may 'believe' it shouldn't be this way, but it factually_ is_ this way. ('it' being defined as a lifelong marriage)
> 
> *Until death do us part.*


You may be surprised to realize that a vast majority of marriages worldwide don't utter that phrase. 

I personally believe it's a relic from an earlier age when men held all the rights and women only had access to said rights through their husbands.

Marriage was made for man (or woman), and not man for marriage. There's no guarantee that the person who said this when she/he was 27 will hold that position at 37 or 47 or 57, etc.

Edit: replace "a vast majority" with "a good number".


----------



## wilderness

caladan said:


> You may be surprised to realize that a vast majority of marriages worldwide don't utter that phrase.
> 
> I personally believe it's a relic from an earlier age when men held all the rights and women only had access to said rights through their husbands.
> 
> Marriage was made for man (or woman), and not man for marriage. There's no guarantee that the person who said this when she/he was 27 will hold that position at 37 or 47 or 57, etc.


The very fact that someone has to file for divorce is proof that the marriage contract was inferred to be lifelong. It is irrelevant whether the individual holds the position they did when they entered into it. Based on that logic, I could get a mortgage, and then 20 yrs later when I no longer felt like paying it I could file to keep the house and have the mortgage lender pay me. Silly, really.


----------



## Lon

827Aug, Is the alimony your ex pays based on how much he was earning when your contributions in the home allowed him to?

If he wished to take a pay cut in other to take on more custodial time with his kids, would the alimony he pays be reduced? If he still earns the same income now as when you were together, who takes care of his domestic needs?

If he were to get injured and could no longer work, would you still deserve the same amount of alimony from him? What if he got fired from his job and stopped paying you, would you seek legal action up to and including incarceration for him? Or is the amount of alimony indexed directly to his actual earnings? Basically I'm asking if alimony handcuffs him for the rest of his life to being your source of income. Have you thought about finding supplemental income so that you are no longer dependent on alimony payments?


----------



## caladan

wilderness said:


> The very fact that someone has to file for divorce is proof that the marriage contract was inferred to be lifelong. It is irrelevant whether the individual holds the position they did when they entered into it. Based on that logic, I could get a mortgage, and then 20 yrs later when I no longer felt like paying it I could file to keep the house and have the mortgage lender pay me. Silly, really.


Heh, I think you misunderstand a mortgage if you consider that to be even similar.

She loses her youth. Her qualifications have aged and are less "relevant" than they were when you got married. You have also "acquired" kids through her. How do we know she won't have made even more money if she didn't marry you? Due to being a SAHM, she has had vastly reduced access to opportunites to grow a retirement portfolio the way you did (yes, your mutual decision denied her of these chances), and now you want her to walk away empty handed? How is that even fair?

In your morgage example, she just may be the mortgage company, with you expecting to walk away with the house.


----------



## 827Aug

Lon,

You have a lot of questions. I'll try to answer as best I can. 

Had we gone to court at the height of our earnings, my alimony would have been $15K monthly. We lost the business, so I get nowhere near that amount. Professionals, like my husband, all make essentially the same pay when they are employees. They are in demand, so he always has the opportunity to work extra days. My alimony is based on his flat pay rate. 

There are no children involved at this point. And when they were teenagers, he walked out on us. He really didn't want them around much because it would interfere with his social life.

We lost the family home, so I live with my 89 year old mother. He, on the other hand, lives in a nice place in the city's high class night club district. I'm sure one of the little tramps takes care of his "domestic needs". At least that's what one of them told the judge. 

I would absolutely love to earn my own living. No one will exactly hire a 50 year old woman with disabilities. Since I'm very handy with arts & crafts, I do continually look for a niche there. I recently started collecting some royalties on my work. I always keep my eyes open for things I can do. I'm really not trying to be a deadbeat.

My brothers' put it best one day when I was feeling pretty low. XXXX had a choice. He didn't have to cheat. He didn't have to abandon his family. He didn't have to destroy our business. He CHOSE to destroy our marriage. Alimony was HIS CHOICE.


----------



## Enginerd

Lon said:


> Was reading a post about a SAHW leaving her husband, and how he should make sure to control his own finances. And it got me to thinking about just how unfair spousal maintenance (Alimony) is, for the vast majority of separations.
> 
> I previously have been of the mindset, that if a W stays home in order to support her H's career, then she has sacrificed her future earning potential for the benefit of the family as a unit.
> 
> When the W leaves her H, courts tend to use the H's earning potential as a basis to determine Alimony payments, since he has to provide for the same standard of living after separation as before (ie he has to compensate his XW for her undue financial hardship). But what of his loss of her contributions (of maintaining the home and rearing the children) that he suffers post-separation? The H has also made sacrifices in terms of time and bonding opportunities at home in order to provide for the family as a unit, but it seems that sacrfice is not only dismissed by the courts but penalized.
> 
> Alimony protects the WAW from the financial consequence of her sacrifice, while creating a situation where the LH not only has to take up the financial liability of her sacrfice, but penalizes him further since he is essentially relegated to maintaining the same income level to provide payments but face additional hardship of doubling the sacrfice of not having opportunities at home to bond with his children.
> 
> scenario: SAHM of 2 kids, H works 70 hours a week and earns $120,000 /yr but gets to tuck his kids in every night and bond with them every weekend. SAHM leaves, court determines she is entitled to standard full custody with every other weekend visitation for H, and is granted, say $1000/mo alimony. Post divorce, life looks exactly the same for her, except she is in an apartment rather than a house (probably even easier to keep clean) or else she is still in the house but complaining that she doesn't get enough support payments to cover the mortgage. Post divorce for him, he has to work an additional 6-8 hours a week to pay the increased bills or else move into a small apartment, doesn't see his kids, doesn't have meals or someone to help maintain the home and has even less money left over.
> 
> In other words, his ability to maintain the prior standard of living is no longer possible, so why would the courts put such hardship onto him? How is it for the benefit of the children, especially as they will no longer have their father in their daily lives?
> 
> For myself, I am post divorce and in an equal parenting arrangement, and while I was married my ex took on many of the domestic duties (or atleast that was my assumption based on her not going back into the workforce, or rather working in the home to be with our child and taking in others to supplement the bills) Under that arrangement I had much higher earning potential than I do now but that was because I chose to stick as close to home as possible. After separation my earning potential dropped much lower than my peers because at the time of my separation I had a 9-5 job in the city with flexible enough benefits to be able to share custody equally.
> 
> Had I been more focussed on my career I would have been stuck with that and not had a close bond with my son. It is too bad that courts essentially force breadwinners into that role permanently with alimony when the SAH spouse chooses to leave,* it leaves children of divorced couples worse off.*




Exactly my point. How is your situation better than mine?


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



Enginerd said:


> [/B]
> 
> Exactly my point. How is your situation better than mine?


It is better because I am no longer afraid of the worst case scenario, I don't have any guilt of stringing anyone along, or the shame of being strung along. As for my son, I wish he would have had the opportunity to be raised in a home where his parents loved and supported each other, but because that didn't happen, and one parent proved incapable of sticking it out I'm relieved that the toxic environment was abandoned sooner rather than later. Now my focus is back to the basics, taking care of my own responsibilities, bonding with my son and showing him love, and hopefully instill the same compassion, responsibility and ideals in him, or atleast teach him it is good to have his own ideals.


----------



## honcho

One of the problems with alimony in todays day and age. Yes it was designed to protect a housewife who after years of caring for children, households doesnt necessarily have the skills to get back into the workplace easily etc. 

In todays day and age how many one income families really exist anymore. In marriages both parties made sacrifices, both contributed we are talking more about severage pay than anything it seems. 

Where is gets in the slippery slope is the whole maintaining a style of living nonsense and where no fault states have problems. In my case, mine chose to leave and live with another who made more than I do, this lifestyle was more fun than mine I guess. She at no point was choosing to live an independent life, she just went from being dependent on me to another. Had we done a speedy divorce she was living with him, alimony would not be awarded. 

She gets the boot and now is forced to live an indepent life, and I get penalized because her grand plan didnt work out the way she thought. Well my grand plan didnt work out like I thought either. Having to reward this person for say 7 years for services rendered is an insult. It also forces me to work and maintain a salary, be the responsible one without any care for my happiness or desires out of life. Had she left, got an apartment, starting living an indepent life, trying to stand on her own two feet, yes alimony can be justified but for how long is a great question. 

Yet she has no real penalty, she has the ability to work full time build a new life and while I dont have a problem helping her get back on her feet and start a new life, she has no incentive to do so, she is still my dependent and till the checks quit rolling in or she finds a new guy it wont change. 

The intent of the law is justifiable but its implementation is flawed.


----------



## caladan

honcho said:


> One of the problems with alimony in todays day and age. Yes it was designed to protect a housewife who after years of caring for children, households doesnt necessarily have the skills to get back into the workplace easily etc.
> 
> In todays day and age how many one income families really exist anymore. In marriages both parties made sacrifices, both contributed we are talking more about severage pay than anything it seems.
> 
> Where is gets in the slippery slope is the whole maintaining a style of living nonsense and where no fault states have problems. In my case, mine chose to leave and live with another who made more than I do, this lifestyle was more fun than mine I guess. She at no point was choosing to live an independent life, she just went from being dependent on me to another. Had we done a speedy divorce she was living with him, alimony would not be awarded.
> 
> She gets the boot and now is forced to live an indepent life, and I get penalized because her grand plan didnt work out the way she thought. Well my grand plan didnt work out like I thought either. Having to reward this person for say 7 years for services rendered is an insult. It also forces me to work and maintain a salary, be the responsible one without any care for my happiness or desires out of life. Had she left, got an apartment, starting living an indepent life, trying to stand on her own two feet, yes alimony can be justified but for how long is a great question.
> 
> Yet she has no real penalty, she has the ability to work full time build a new life and while I dont have a problem helping her get back on her feet and start a new life, she has no incentive to do so, she is still my dependent and till the checks quit rolling in or she finds a new guy it wont change.
> 
> The intent of the law is justifiable but its implementation is flawed.


I see your point. 

Was she a SAHM? If not, how come you're paying alimony? 

Whoever she goes to live with shouldn't matter the least (unless she gets married to the person), just as it won't matter if you were the one who walked away and she was the higher earner.


----------



## Thor

caladan said:


> I see your point.
> 
> Was she a SAHM? If not, how come you're paying alimony?
> 
> Whoever she goes to live with shouldn't matter the least (unless she gets married to the person),


I disagree. If she cohabitates she is getting financial support of some sort from her new man. Alimony should be eliminated.

I have a coworker, divorced female, who says quite plainly she lives with but does not marry a man because she would lose alimony. So she is double dipping. She is defrauding her xh.


----------



## soccermom2three

827Aug said:


> Lon,
> 
> You have a lot of questions. I'll try to answer as best I can.
> 
> Had we gone to court at the height of our earnings, my alimony would have been $15K monthly. We lost the business, so I get nowhere near that amount. Professionals, like my husband, all make essentially the same pay when they are employees. They are in demand, so he always has the opportunity to work extra days. My alimony is based on his flat pay rate.
> 
> There are no children involved at this point. And when they were teenagers, he walked out on us. He really didn't want them around much because it would interfere with his social life.
> 
> We lost the family home, so I live with my 89 year old mother. He, on the other hand, lives in a nice place in the city's high class night club district. I'm sure one of the little tramps takes care of his "domestic needs". At least that's what one of them told the judge.
> 
> I would absolutely love to earn my own living. No one will exactly hire a 50 year old woman with disabilities. Since I'm very handy with arts & crafts, I do continually look for a niche there. I recently started collecting some royalties on my work. I always keep my eyes open for things I can do. I'm really not trying to be a deadbeat.
> 
> My brothers' put it best one day when I was feeling pretty low. XXXX had a choice. He didn't have to cheat. He didn't have to abandon his family. He didn't have to destroy our business. He CHOSE to destroy our marriage. Alimony was HIS CHOICE.


Yeah, my Dad's OW would have slipped right into the role of "Domestic Goddess" while bringing along her 8 year old son. I'm sure my Dad wouldn't have suffered much on that front.


----------



## honcho

I earn much more than she does, though she has the ability to earn more and has in the past. But even working to her earnings capacity or whatever term they use, I make more. She also has no incentive to do so since she gets a handy check each month for not working. 

If she lives with anyone, her sick aunt, her parents, another guy she falls under the cohabitation and not being independent and I could then take her back to court and petition to have alimony stopped which works fine if I am keeping track of her but if she moved to a different city makes it much harder to keep tabs on her.


----------



## caladan

Thor said:


> I disagree. If she cohabitates she is getting financial support of some sort from her new man. Alimony should be eliminated.
> 
> I have a coworker, divorced female, who says quite plainly she lives with but does not marry a man because she would lose alimony. So she is double dipping. She is defrauding her xh.


And if you get a girlfriend? Does she then get the right to ask for more alimony? Afterall, you also are cohabiting.


----------



## Thor

caladan said:


> And if you get a girlfriend? Does she then get the right to ask for more alimony? Afterall, you also are cohabiting.


No, the live in girlfriend becomes a bigger drain on my income. Even if the man gets remarried his alimony payments don't change.

The concept as I understand it in my state is that in a long term marriage the two divorced people shared a common standard of living for all those years, and somehow this entitles both to an equal standard of living as the other during the divorce. That is, their combined income is evenly shared after the divorce.

It doesn't matter who the higher earner was before the divorce, man or woman.

The evil of this concept plays out in the details. The lower earner has zero motivation to earn more. If she earns another $1k, she loses $500 of alimony. If the higher earner was working overtime, picking up extra shifts for a few years to pay kids' tuitions or save for retirement, that higher income is expected to continue. He is locked into working overtime in order to pay the alimony. If he voluntarily chooses a lower paying job he is still on the hook for the full alimony, thus enslaving him to a job or location he may hate.

I believe there is a major difference in concept between the obligation to a stay-at-home spouse if the working spouse initiates divorce vs two working spouses who are capable of supporting themselves when divorced.


----------



## caladan

Thor said:


> No, the live in girlfriend becomes a bigger drain on my income. Even if the man gets remarried his alimony payments don't change.
> 
> The concept as I understand it in my state is that in a long term marriage the two divorced people shared a common standard of living for all those years, and somehow this entitles both to an equal standard of living as the other during the divorce. That is, their combined income is evenly shared after the divorce.
> 
> It doesn't matter who the higher earner was before the divorce, man or woman.
> 
> The evil of this concept plays out in the details. The lower earner has zero motivation to earn more. If she earns another $1k, she loses $500 of alimony. If the higher earner was working overtime, picking up extra shifts for a few years to pay kids' tuitions or save for retirement, that higher income is expected to continue. He is locked into working overtime in order to pay the alimony. If he voluntarily chooses a lower paying job he is still on the hook for the full alimony, thus enslaving him to a job or location he may hate.
> 
> I believe there is a major difference in concept between the obligation to a stay-at-home spouse if the working spouse initiates divorce vs two working spouses who are capable of supporting themselves when divorced.


I know a bit about these laws. If she suddenly goes into the work force and starts to make a whole lot of money, you can get your alimony changed or even reversed. Also - why would a girlfriend be a "drain on your income"? There's an assumption here that this girlfriend must earn less than you do, why? I've dated women who earned more than I did. Woman actually.

Same goes for your marriage, you could marry a woman who out-earns you and suddenly your alimony is no longer so wearisome.

My point is - this law cuts both ways across the gender divide. and - if you have no income, you can apply to get the alimony renegotiated.


----------



## BeachGuy

Divorce laws are antiquated and favor the stay at home parent, usually the wife. They're completely unfair, period.

My stbx hasn't worked in 15 years but had agreed she would go back to work 6 years ago and didn't. She never had a job that required any skills beyond what she has now so she hasn't lost anything by being out of the workforce. She has a college degree. She never cooks meals, she doesn't keep our house clean, she doesn't teach our kids anything and waits on them hand and foot. She stopped having sex with me a dozen years ago.

That said, she will very likely get the house and it's equity, half my retirement but keep all of hers, child support and alimony for at least 15 years, maybe longer. I have to maintain life insurance with HER as the beneficiary until she's 60. I'll get less than 50% of my own paycheck.

Tell me why? What did this woman do to "earn" or "deserve" that kind of support from me? Which is why a small part of me is considering pulling the plug at the last minute on the divorce.

Men get screwed in divorce, even if they're the best husband/father/employee in the world.


----------



## Thor

caladan said:


> I know a bit about these laws. If she suddenly goes into the work force and starts to make a whole lot of money, you can get your alimony changed or even reversed. Also - why would a girlfriend be a "drain on your income"? There's an assumption here that this girlfriend must earn less than you do, why? I've dated women who earned more than I did. Woman actually.
> 
> Same goes for your marriage, you could marry a woman who out-earns you and suddenly your alimony is no longer so wearisome.
> 
> My point is - this law cuts both ways across the gender divide. and - if you have no income, you can apply to get the alimony renegotiated.


Yes it cuts both ways. You give the example of a SAHM who goes out into the workforce. In most cases I think she will be better off working than collecting alimony unless she is older with no marketable skills, or ex-h is very wealthy and a very high earner. Not common.

The girlfriend comment was tongue in cheek. Hopefully a live in girlfriend is at least cost neutral.

Alimony in my state is static. That is, it stays as ordered until someone goes back to court.

Yes, an ex could suddenly start making more money and then the other could go to court to get alimony changed. But, let's look at real life human behavior.

Let's make up numbers for fun. He makes $100k, she makes $50k. In my state he would pay her $25k alimony per year for life.

If she wanted to make more money she would have to work more hours. Why would she take on additional hours per week to then only get half of the additional pay?

Now if she were offered a job which paid twice her current pay, she would lose her alimony (after he took her to court to change it). She would be ahead by $25k in the end, so it may be worth her doing it. But honestly how often does this happen? Usually a person is offered 10% or maybe 20% more than their current position. In our example the raise would not amount to anything because it would be offset by lost alimony. So there is no motivation for the receiver to seek increased pay, especially if the higher paying job has more stress, more work hours, or other negative aspects.

A new spouse of the payer is not party to the alimony. Yes if she makes a decent amount of money it will make his alimony less wearisome to pay. But she is not on the hook for the alimony because she is not obligated to keep his ex-wife in a certain standard of living, so ex-wife cannot get an increase in alimony.

However, if ex-wife remarries she accepts a new standard of living as part of sharing life with her new husband. It may be better or worse than under her alimony.

I object to the philosophy that after divorce there is some lifelong financial obligation to a spouse who is able to support him or her self. It even creates incentives to cheat and/or to divorce on one side, while penalizing the BS on the other side.


----------



## wilderness

caladan said:


> I know a bit about these laws. If she suddenly goes into the work force and starts to make a whole lot of money, you can get your alimony changed or even reversed. Also - why would a girlfriend be a "drain on your income"? There's an assumption here that this girlfriend must earn less than you do, why? I've dated women who earned more than I did. Woman actually.
> 
> Same goes for your marriage, you could marry a woman who out-earns you and suddenly your alimony is no longer so wearisome.
> 
> My point is - this law cuts both ways across the gender divide. and - if you have no income, you can apply to get the alimony renegotiated.


Caladan-

Having alimony dropped or renegotiated is much more difficult than you are making it seem. First of all, it is expensive. Second of all, there is a high burden of proof associated with the change. Cohabitation situations are almost impossible to prove as often the woman will claim a roommate situation as opposed to a bf/gf/financial support situation.
In practice it is very difficult to get alimony reduced or eliminated once it is ordered.


----------



## cdbaker

soccermom2three said:


> I can think of a really good reason for lifetime alimony.
> 
> In the case of my parents, my Dad's LTR affair was discovered after almost 24 years of marriage. My mom was SAHM the entire time and never worked outside the home. That was THEIR arrangement. If my Dad hadn't thrown the OW under the bus and my Mom hadn't decided to reconcile, (like she had a choice), my Dad most certainly deserved to pay my Mom lifetime alimony. She kept her end of the bargain, (wedding vows). It's not like she would have been rich and living it up. My Dad owned a blue collar business, we were very middle class. She probably would have had to move in with her sister or parents because she couldn't afford the house we grew up in. There would've been no child support either. My brother and I were both over 18 when the OW came knocking on the door and my mom answered.


I agree with you completely in this instance. The real problem with alimony in this country (in my humble opinion) isn't whether it is or isn't fair, it's that most states don't allow judges to consider fault in the dissolution of the marriage. This country is on a mad dash to eliminate personal responsibility in all facets of life, and this is one of those areas. Because with your situation, I completely agree that she deserves that alimony for as long as she needs it or until she gets remarried.

In other situations though, that's not the case. Take your parents for example. If it were the other way around and your mom was in a long term affair with another man, your dad eventually found out and pursued divorce, then I would argue without question that your mom doesn't deserve a penny. Because the divorce would most predominantly be the result of her cheating/breaking of vows, and your dad shouldn't be punished for it. Unfortunately, there aren't many states out there anymore that allow for both alimony and at-fault divorces. So in the alimony states, the cheating spouse can easily get rewarded for their adultery.


----------



## Lon

Philosophically, alimony is not supposed to be a punitive measure, it is supposed to be a quantitative measure if fairness and recognition of both parties contributions to the family unit.

Fault doesn't matter, if you deserve alimony it is not because you were betrayed and cheated on, it's because the arrangement has come to an end and spousal support is intended to ensure fairness and equality in the new division of responsibility. The problem often is that the income earner is usually required to maintain the previous responsibilities while also having to provide additional new ones on top of that.

Now if a betrayed spouse is seeking punitive damages I do wish that the laws and courts would permit that more easily, but it seems that avenue is never taken. So instead many feel that purpose needs to be included in the alimony calculation. I think this is why the whole concept generates so much angst and why so many men feel it is unfair.


----------



## wilderness

Lon said:


> *Philosophically, alimony is not supposed to be a punitive measure, it is supposed to be a quantitative measure if fairness and recognition of both parties contributions to the family unit.*
> 
> Fault doesn't matter, if you deserve alimony it is not because you were betrayed and cheated on, it's because the arrangement has come to an end and spousal support is intended to ensure fairness and equality in the new division of responsibility. The problem often is that the income earner is usually required to maintain the previous responsibilities while also having to provide additional new ones on top of that.
> 
> Now if a betrayed spouse is seeking punitive damages I do wish that the laws and courts would permit that more easily, but it seems that avenue is never taken. So instead many feel that purpose needs to be included in the alimony calculation. I think this is why the whole concept generates so much angst and why so many men feel it is unfair.


This is the pretense, but not the reality. The practical reality is that the party receiving alimony usually has a much better standard of living than the person paying it. On top of that the receiver of the alimony often doesn't have to work.
Really, it couldn't get more unfair. It's criminal.


----------



## Thor

Alimony should not be either punishment or reward. A BS should not be entitled to alimony simply because the other person cheated.

And I don't understand why a capable adult is entitled to perpetual access to the labors of another after the marriage is dissolved. Once the marriage is dissolved there is no ongoing cooperative family unit working together to establish a system of mutual support.

To extend the argument, why is a pension not fair game? A person is entitled to a share of the pension as of the day of divorce but not any further increases after that. Why not? Isn't pension accrual a form of compensation to the employee (those who still get pensions). How about 401K growth after divorce? Why isn't that fair game down the road?

To put it another way, if I am not good enough to live with any more, why are my labors ok to take from me? Can I come over and take some sex from the ex? Can I force the ex to come over and do the things she used to do like gardening or laundry?


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



Thor said:


> Alimony should not be either punishment or reward. A BS should not be entitled to alimony simply because the other person cheated.
> 
> And I don't understand why a capable adult is entitled to perpetual access to the labors of another after the marriage is dissolved. Once the marriage is dissolved there is no ongoing cooperative family unit working together to establish a system of mutual support.
> 
> To extend the argument, why is a pension not fair game? A person is entitled to a share of the pension as of the day of divorce but not any further increases after that. Why not? Isn't pension accrual a form of compensation to the employee (those who still get pensions). How about 401K growth after divorce? Why isn't that fair game down the road?
> 
> To put it another way, if I am not good enough to live with any more, why are my labors ok to take from me? Can I come over and take some sex from the ex? Can I force the ex to come over and do the things she used to do like gardening or laundry?


As to the pension, the contributions came from community assets, so I think it should be fair for the lower income earner to receive a share of pension benefits based on the portion that was contributed while the functioning relationship was intact. But not the portion of benefits that came about from contributions made by the sole party after the separation.


----------



## Thor

Lon said:


> As to the pension, the contributions came from community assets, so I think it should be fair for the lower income earner to receive a share of pension benefits based on the portion that was contributed while the functioning relationship was intact. But not the portion of benefits that came about from contributions made by the sole party after the separation.


How is the pension any different than wages earned after the divorce?

The worker puts in hours and gets a paycheck. The worker also accrues more pension. Why is the ex-spouse entitled to wages but not pension after the divorce?

Alimony is based on a flawed concept when both people are capable of supporting themselves adequately. The lower earner is presumed some right to take the earnings (labors) of the higher earner after all other aspects of their marriage agreement have been terminated. The higher earner is obligated to provide materially for the lower earner. Is this not a form of enslavement?


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



Thor said:


> How is the pension any different than wages earned after the divorce?
> 
> The worker puts in hours and gets a paycheck. The worker also accrues more pension. Why is the ex-spouse entitled to wages but not pension after the divorce?
> 
> Alimony is based on a flawed concept when both people are capable of supporting themselves adequately. The lower earner is presumed some right to take the earnings (labors) of the higher earner after all other aspects of their marriage agreement have been terminated. The higher earner is obligated to provide materially for the lower earner. Is this not a form of enslavement?


Because before divorce both partners contribute to the community pot, same reason why each partner is entitled to half the assets. The pension contributions on which the future benefits are based are community property of the marriage (or atleast the portion contributed during the marriage).

Income level after divorce is not community property.

Or maybe I am misconstruing, are pensions not typically included in separation agreements in cases of alimony calculations?


----------



## honcho

cohabitation or married at least in my state is all how the final decree is written up. Most attorneys serving the one receiving alimony will want it written that alimony is entitled until a marriage. Couse then they can live together and still receive the funds, just not get married.

More attorneys are writing to just state cohabitation since the day and age of people living together doesn't carry the stigma it once did and now is common practice. Remember way back in time when living together used to be uncommon? It also covers the same sex relationship since many states they still cant get married. Even just being non romantic roommates is then covered because they don't have the expenses that an independent person has. They still are dependent on another to at least pay part of costs. 

Again it shows how antiquated the court systems are in general and how they don't have much incentive to change and refine the system. Lawyers don't get the easy billing time. What incentive do they have to change there own broken system.


----------



## LongWalk

Alimony must continue to exist because law makers fear angering women voters. Feminists do not generally oppose alimony because the majority want a better deal for women, not an equal deal. 

A womb can only be used for a certain period of a woman's life. Men must compensate for the lost opportunity to have made a contract with another male.


----------



## Thor

Lon said:


> Because before divorce both partners contribute to the community pot, same reason why each partner is entitled to half the assets. The pension contributions on which the future benefits are based are community property of the marriage (or atleast the portion contributed during the marriage).
> 
> *Income level after divorce is not community property.
> *
> Or maybe I am misconstruing, are pensions not typically included in separation agreements in cases of alimony calculations?


In my state they consider the value of pensions at the time of divorce, and split it 50/50. But any future gains in the pension are not split. That is, if the pension is worth $1000 per month right now, each spouse will get $500 per month when retirement happens. But if the pension grows to $2000 per month after the divorce, the ex still only gets $500 of it while the worker gets $1500 of it.

Which I agree with.

Yet it is philosophically at odds with the idea of alimony as an entitlement after divorce.

In my state, income level after divorce *is* community property. They split future incomes of the spouses. In my example of one earning $100k and the other earning $50k, in my state each is entitled to $75k. The courts take $25k from the high earner and give it to the lower earner. This is not a case of keeping an unskilled dumped spouse out of poverty. 

The philosophy is that the couple shared an equal lifestyle during marriage and thus, somehow, there is a presumption they should share an equal lifestyle after divorce. Regardless of fault or circumstances leading to the divorce!

So a cheating low earning wife can divorce her high earning banker husband and take half his income for the rest of his life. Hardly a fair deal. What is there to discourage her from cheating? What is there to make divorce undesirable to her?


----------



## LongWalk

Men will shy away from marriage if they understand the risk.

Part of the problem in the US is that the car oriented infrastructure means that one parent has to drive children around. When I was growing up in the 60s and 70s children walked to school.

Changing the way we live is necessary to make marriage more equal


----------



## Anon Pink

The purpose of an equitable division of assets is so that any children involved are not materially affected more than they already are due to the divorce itself. We can all site situation after situation in which either party was "screwed" in the division of assets. But the best interest of the children involved is the primary concern in the court system. 

Bottom line, divorce is a hell of a lot more expensive than making a marriage work in the first place.


----------



## wilderness

Anon Pink said:


> The purpose of an equitable division of assets is so that any children involved are not materially affected more than they already are due to the divorce itself. We can all site situation after situation in which either party was "screwed" in the division of assets. But the best interest of the children involved is the primary concern in the court system.
> 
> Bottom line, divorce is a hell of a lot more expensive than making a marriage work in the first place.


A marriage with no children does not preclude alimony, so children have absolutely 0 to do with alimony. Furthermore, the courts are NOT concerned at all about the best interests of children. They claim to be concerned about the best interests of children, but actions speak louder than words. The actions of the courts demonstrate positively that the courts are truly concerned about the _worst_ interests of children.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



wilderness said:


> A marriage with no children does not preclude alimony, so children have absolutely 0 to do with alimony. Furthermore, the courts are NOT concerned at all about the best interests of children. They claim to be concerned about the best interests of children, but actions speak louder than words. The actions of the courts demonstrate positively that the courts are truly concerned about the _worst_ interests of children.


where I live, child support has no bearing on alimony, they are separately negotiated payments. All divorces that go through court wil be subject to child support calculations when there are kids in the mix. Alimony here is purely support for the lower income party.


----------



## Anon Pink

wilderness said:


> A marriage with no children does not preclude alimony, so children have absolutely 0 to do with alimony. Furthermore, the courts are NOT concerned at all about the best interests of children. They claim to be concerned about the best interests of children, but actions speak louder than words. The actions of the courts demonstrate positively that the courts are truly concerned about the _worst_ interests of children.


Well you know best as always.


----------



## LongWalk

Lon said:


> where I live, child support has no bearing on alimony, they are separately negotiated payments. All divorces that go through court wil be subject to child support calculations when there are kids in the mix. Alimony here is purely support for the lower income party.


A little like socialist redistribution of wealth.

Weil, I learned something profound from this thread. Alimony in some cases is paid for a livetime. The contribution to marriage that receiver of alimony gets vanishes and there is not compensation at all.

If the stay at home spouse did the shopping, cooking, cleaning and child raising, suddenly no one does those jobs for the ex. The pay for the SAH spouse is permanent but no one does the work. The wage eaning spouse must continue to work as before and perhaps even more to make up for the loss of services.

Of course the SAH spouse also loses labor but presumably less.


----------



## Anon Pink

It can get pretty expensive to call a handyman every time you see a spider crawl under the couch, can't get a jar opened, or something leaks, squeaks, or is stuck. Delivery of a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread can run the cost up too. Loss of services goes both ways and if the former SAHM isn't affected by loss of services as much as the former husband...well that might be a consideration of how he became a former husband.


----------



## LongWalk

Anon Pink,

You are right these things go both ways. I am sure there are plenty of men who are divorced because they did not do their fair share of the work. 

My father did almost zero in terms of household chores. He was doctor and his time and profession made him too important to lift finger. He was also and electrical engineer, but he resented the hell out of my mother for asking him to change a light bulb. He did no traditional work in the yard.

You would think that an electrical engineer, MS no less, would as a matter or professional pride have fixed fridges, furnaces or something that would challenge the engineer. No way. My father used PCs but never learned to do anything but word processing and email. He claimed he was a computer scientist.

I had no sisters. They would have been in a pitious situation because my mother believed girls should work. She was brought up in an imporverished country in the UK. My mother treats my daughter poorly because she thinks they should be polite, obedient and work. My mother does not demand that of male grandchildren. They can treat her disrespectfully or ignore her she will put a good spin on it. 

So it is not just men who push women into the servant roles. Women have done it and do it to other women, not least their own daughters. 

So who helped with the dishes when I as a boy. As the eldest son it fell upon me. My first younger brother, who later died of schizophrenia, was not forced to this work. My mother was protective of him. She realized their was something wrong with him and left him be. The next youngest, who had a very sunny disposition, always said that he had to go to the toilet. He simply never returned. My youngest brother was too young.

It was the unfairness of it that bothered me. And it is funny that such a small thing from the past still eats at me. Ridiculous, really. My mother never let me do any masculine chores, nothing with tools that were dangerous, aside from cutting the grass. 

Her brothers were working class men who did things with their hands, but I was not allowed to saw, hammer or nail, all masculine chores.

i am certain that spouse inherit baggage when it comes to expectations about household chores. They pay for the habits and resentment from childhood. Those who had parents who knew how to successfully divide work at home gave their children a pattern for success.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



Anon Pink said:


> It can get pretty expensive to call a handyman every time you see a spider crawl under the couch, can't get a jar opened, or something leaks, squeaks, or is stuck. Delivery of a gallon of milk and a loaf of bread can run the cost up too. Loss of services goes both ways and if the former SAHM isn't affected by loss of services as much as the former husband...well that might be a consideration of how he became a former husband.


Uh, you place the value of those "services" at the same level as what a sahm or housewife does?

The whole premise of alimony is that both partners contributions toward the standard are living are equal.

My logic has simply been that if the standard of living goes down for the low income earner after divorce, then if the value of the contributions were weighted equally, how come no recognition is made that the higher income earner's standard of living goes down by the exact equal amount?

How can long term alimony be justified unless it is determined that the marriage isn't an equal partner contact and in fact one partner is akin to a legal dependent on the other the same way a child is?

Why aren't the feminists all out in force to argue just how antiquated and demeaning alimony is? I only make this about gender because fathers rights groups are already out in full force about this.


----------



## Anon Pink

Lon, when I am appointed as spokesperson for the feminists I'll answer that question. Also, have you seen the size of the spiders in my house! That's hazard pay!

I don't understand why the need to split hairs? Equal partner or legal dependent??? Husband works to earn a wage, wife works to run the home. After D, they both still have the same work they always did only now they both have to fill the role of the other.


----------



## LongWalk

Not true, AnonPink. The stay at home spouse gets the same compensation but does no work, except in some cases child care. The career spouse continues to work as before.

I never saw this inequality until now.

_Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



LongWalk said:


> I never saw this inequality until now.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


I know right!? When you see it suddenly it makes sense why the concept of alimony is unsettling.


----------



## Anon Pink

LongWalk said:


> Not true, AnonPink. The stay at home spouse gets the same compensation but does no work, except in some cases child care. The career spouse continues to work as before.
> 
> I never saw this inequality until now.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


Not being argumentative here but I'm still not seeing it.

SAHM still keeps the kids and runs the home and plans and etc.. Dad still goes to work and earns wages. Instead of his wages going into one pool, it gets split into..let's say thirds. Third for him, third for kids, third for wife. She hasn't stopped keeping kids or running the home etc, but now has to do the chores dad once did. Dad now has to do the chores he always did, plus the chores wife did. Where is the inequality?

Is it because she isn't earning a wage outside the home?


----------



## Anon Pink

But she's not getting the same compensation as before. She's getting significantly less than before. And her wage earning potential is pretty low and will remain so until the kids are grown and gone. I'm just not seeing it?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

I don't believe in life time alimony whatsoever and I am a card carrying member of NOW. I do however believe that if you want your wife to stay home to take care of children and home then divorce, you certainly have an obligation to provide support for her so she can get back on her feet. I don't know what that time frame is but it sure isn't lifetime and it sure isn't not at all. 

It's so weird to me that the "traditional" men who want their wives to stay home and take care of children then balk at alimony when the marriage goes south. She has been out of the job market for years thus reducing her value as an employee as a sacrifice for the betterment of the family. You can't have it both ways. Either you want your wife to work or you don't and you will be expected to provide some financial compensation after the fact.

That said, I'm not sure who said feminists are fighting family courts to give children/support to women. That is 100% untrue. It is women who are fighting the courts to make parenting dual gender. Women are fed up with being assumed to be the caretaker while the men write a check. It puts the onus of childcare on women and they get a raw deal. $430 is the American average child support check for two children. So women get all the responsibility of raising the kids and a tiny check to make it possible. Women are fighting family court tooth and nail to end this. They want joint custody in all cases barring abuse, etc. Equality is what us women are fighting for.


----------



## honcho

If the spouse receiving alimony still has minor children then that person would be receiving child support which is different than alimony. 

Child support is to pay for the childrens needs and care of the minor children till adulthood. The theory covers housing, food, clothing etc. Alimony is completely unrelated and the argument that they cannont work full time to care for the children doesnt apply because they receive child support which would cover day care other services so they could work full time.

Part of the premise again is if you have minor children you most likely didnt have a long term marriage, its a generality I understand, and then alimony doesnt even come into play.


----------



## Thor

Therealbrighteyes said:


> I don't believe in life time alimony whatsoever and I am a card carrying feminist and member of NOW. I do however believe that if you want your wife to stay home to take care of children and home, then divorce, you certainly have an obligation to provide support for her so she can get on her feet. I don't know what that time frame is but it sure isn't lifetime and it sure isn't not at all.
> 
> It's so weird to me that the "traditional" men who want their wives to stay home and take care of children then balk at alimony when the marriage goes south. She has been out of the job market for years thus reducing her value as an employee as a sacrifice for the betterment of the family. You can't have it both ways. Either you want your wife to work or you don't and you will be expected to provide some financial compensation after the fact.


I am a fairly traditional man. I see the value in a SAHM to raise the kids. Alimony makes sense to me in this type of situation, provided that the SAHM is not the one who initiates divorce or had an affair.

The problem I have with alimony is the total no-fault aspect of it. There are scenarios which play in both directions where either the husband or wife gets totally screwed over by alimony under no-fault.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



Anon Pink said:


> Not being argumentative here but I'm still not seeing it.
> 
> SAHM still keeps the kids and runs the home and plans and etc.. Dad still goes to work and earns wages. Instead of his wages going into one pool, it gets split into..let's say thirds. Third for him, third for kids, third for wife. She hasn't stopped keeping kids or running the home etc, but now has to do the chores dad once did. Dad now has to do the chores he always did, plus the chores wife did. Where is the inequality?
> 
> Is it because she isn't earning a wage outside the home?


The inequality is that under your scenario there is no change for the sahm except she no longer has someone to chase spiders away. But the working H no longer has help to be able to be the primary earner, he now has to be worker, cook, cleaner, launderer, bill payer, shopper,.decorater and because of all the new responsibilities on top of having to provide the income for his ex, where does he have time to be father to his kids?

it all has to do with how much value you place on being a home maker, and using your stance, there is little value on that.

My argument is that in a partnership, the income earner's wage and primary role as earner is only possible because the domestic duties are being taken care of by the home maker. The home maker's job is just as valuable as the income breadwinner, but all that value seems to be completely discounted in the alimony calculation.

If there was no value in home-making duties then yes it would come down to the sahm not having an income, because that would mean she isn't pulling her weight, and why should the one pulling the weight be responsible for their partners lack of doing so? That is the whole reason for divorce, so each spouse can go their separate ways, and permanent spousal support flies in the face of divorce.

I can understand interim spousal support because there is a cost to restructure and decouple the responsibilities, but it should only last as long as it takes for each spouse to reasonably attain their independence from each other.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thor said:


> I am a fairly traditional man. I see the value in a SAHM to raise the kids. Alimony makes sense to me in this type of situation, provided that the SAHM is not the one who initiates divorce or had an affair.
> 
> The problem I have with alimony is the total no-fault aspect of it. There are scenarios which play in both directions where either the husband or wife gets totally screwed over by alimony under no-fault.


So the SAHM should forgo alimony if her husband beats her, cheats on her, ignores her, games all night, drinks or does drugs because she is fed up and initiates divorce? So she is 100% at his mercy? Good God man. 

Honestly, I have no idea why any woman would want to be a SAHM in todays climate. Most states are doing away with lifetime alimony (good) and the vast majority would give a SAHM 3 years alimony tops. Where is the benefit to her? Stay home for years taking care of kids and after the divorce you get 3 years alimony to help you get back on your feet. 5/10/15 years out of the job market and even with a degree the best she could hope for is clerical work. Meanwhile her ex makes God knows what and complains that he has to give his ex anything? No thanks.


----------



## Thor

Therealbrighteyes said:


> So the SAHM should forgo alimony if her husband beats her, cheats on her, ignores her, games all night, drinks or does drugs because she is fed up and initiates divorce? So she is 100% at his mercy? Good God man.


No, there would be fault involved in that divorce situation, and so the judge should apply justice when deciding alimony.

So let's turn your situation around under the current no-fault alimony system. She is the bread winner. He is an unemployed drunkard who beats her, cheats on her, and games all night. So eventually he decides to divorce her. And, he is awarded half her income as alimony.

That is equally unjust as the scenario you posited.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



Thor said:


> I am a fairly traditional man. I see the value in a SAHM to raise the kids. Alimony makes sense to me in this type of situation, provided that the SAHM is not the one who initiates divorce or had an affair.
> 
> The problem I have with alimony is the total no-fault aspect of it. There are scenarios which play in both directions where either the husband or wife gets totally screwed over by alimony under no-fault.


I see value in SAHM too, and I like to think I understand the compromise that goes with that responsibility in term of future standard of living.

To me though, alimony should absolutely be "no-fault". It should not be used to punish or reward either spouse for personality deficiencies or other causes for the marital breakdown.

However I believe it should also have nothing to do with "standard of living", should only have to do with the cost of restructuring in order for both spouses to gain independence, and so in that regard should never be permanent only interim.

I'm not talking about division of assets, nor the child support (which most definitely is about standard of living), merely addressing the aspect of entitlement, which is all I think permanent alimony is.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Thor said:


> No, there would be fault involved in that divorce situation, and so the judge should apply justice when deciding alimony.
> 
> So let's turn your situation around under the current no-fault alimony system. She is the bread winner. He is an unemployed drunkard who beats her, cheats on her, and games all night. So eventually he decides to divorce her. And, he is awarded half her income as alimony.
> 
> That is equally unjust as the scenario you posited.


You said that a wife should get alimony only if she isn't the one who files or didn't cheat. I'm saying a SAHM should get alimony for a period of time because she gave up her career or potential for one to take care of children/home. Do you disagree with this? 

You are flipping between scenarios. Was the SAHM a total slob who sat on her ass doing nothing, no cooking, leaving the kids to cry in their cribs all day, spending her time on Facebook or whatever? Unless that is the case, your scenario isn't the same.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

BTW, I tell every young woman I know to never be a SAHM. You have to either be a complete optimist or a fool to do so.


----------



## honcho

How many traditional one spouse earns and one stays home even exist anymore. Im 48, I can honestly say I only know just a couple of people that would fall under that scenario anymore. 

The two income household is much more prevelant at least in my part of the world. Given a scenario where a couple married say 30 years, one income "traditional" marriage yes valid arguments can be made for alimony but part of that reasoning should also be based on why the marriage is dissolving in the first place. That is the unfortunate instance in many situations, the lower earner or non income earner has no penalty for choices they make without consulting the other spouse.

If she decides that the poolboys life is much more fun, he is the love of her life suddenly, leaves and moves in with him. She made a choice to not live the lifestyle she a accumstomed to. She made the choice of what she wanted, that new life. If it doesnt work out, she gets alimony. She seemily wins either way. So she has her cake and eat it too, 

If a man decides the 20 something stripper is the new love of his live, walks out of wife, yes wife should get alimony to help her, she didnt make the choice to have her life changed. She wasnt involved in the decision. 

Said it before, the theory behind alimony is justifiable, it implementation is flawed and the laws are anitquated.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Lon said:


> I see value in SAHM too, and I like to think I understand the compromise that goes with that responsibility in term of future standard of living.
> 
> To me though, alimony should absolutely be "no-fault". It should not be used to punish or reward either spouse for personality deficiencies or other causes for the marital breakdown.
> 
> However I believe it should also have nothing to do with "standard of living", should only have to do with the cost of restructuring in order for both spouses to gain independence, and so in that regard should never be permanent only interim.
> 
> I'm not talking about division of assets, nor the child support (which most definitely is about standard of living), merely addressing the aspect of entitlement, which is all I think permanent alimony is.


I agree with you on this. I think lifetime alimony is ridiculous. Just flat out robbery. I don't however think alimony is wrong. Plenty of women have given up and sacrificed for their family with nothing financial to show for it.....except their husbands earnings. I do think she deserves part of that. Not forever and I don't know what the term limit should be. My gut tells me 5 years. Enough time for her to go back to college or secure herself with current skills. Would you agree with this?


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



Therealbrighteyes said:


> BTW, I tell every young woman I know to never be a SAHM. You have to either be a complete optimist or a fool to do so.


There are benefits though, especially if the marriage lasts until the retirement years. 1) the ability to create a wonderful home that is well run and helps everyone in the family have a sense of togetherness (ie having a domain) 2) close-knit family values especially when there are young infants/preschoolers 3) more chances for quality time together 4) better opportunity to prepare healthy meals. In other words, having one spouse staying home can increase the standard of living.

When it falls apart, it all falls apart. So yes some forward thinking is critical before choosing to structure the family that way.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Lon said:


> There are benefits though, especially if the marriage lasts until the retirement years. 1) the ability to create a wonderful home that is well run and helps everyone in the family have a sense of togetherness (ie having a domain) 2) close-knit family values especially when there are young infants/preschoolers 3) more chances for quality time together 4) better opportunity to prepare healthy meals. In other words, having one spouse staying home can increase the standard of living.
> 
> When it falls apart, it all falls apart. So yes some forward thinking is critical before choosing to structure the family that way.


Oh there's plenty of benefit....to the husband and kids. The wife? Not so much. Would you give up your career to stay home wiping asses and noses, cooking and cleaning only to be tossed aside at her whim when she decides she wants out, being at her mercy for support which would last a year or two tops? Who other than a delusional woman would sign up for that deal? Nobody, that's who and that's why I tell young women don't ever, EVER become a SAHM. Not only will you be screwed career wise, your ex-husband will have the gaul to complain that he has to give you a dime of "his" money. Again, no thanks.


----------



## LongWalk

There different scenarios. Alimony is generally connected to the length of the marriage. Say a couple divorce at ages 36 and 37. They have three children, 14, 12 and 10. 

The woman goes for 60/40 custody and wins. She gets child support and alimony. OM (affair partner who busted the marriage) makes more money than ex H. But he remains boyfriend so that alimony is secure.

Ex-wife works part time since kids are school.

_Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



Therealbrighteyes said:


> Oh there's plenty of benefit....to the husband and kids. The wife? Not so much. Would you give up your career to stay home wiping asses and noses, cooking and cleaning only to be tossed aside at her whim when she decides she wants out, being at her mercy for support which would last a year or two tops? Who other than a delusional woman pressured by society would sign up for that deal? Nobody, that's who and that's why I tell young women don't ever, EVER become a SAHM. Not only will you be screwed career wise, your ex-husband will have the gaul to complain that he has to give you a dime.


My career is not the most important thing in my life, it is merely a means to an end. If I had a wife with a high paying job and me staying home to wipe noses and asses and running the home enabled her to focus on her career and secure a healthy income for the family, absolutely I would take that deal.

Would I wish to be discarded at her whim? No not really but if I did become discarded it would mean she would instantly lose all my support, and she would have to take on a lot higher load to be able to not only maintain her career but other responsibilities. I would expect my share of whatever assets we accumulated together (and debt too if we were in debt) and I would expect to share custody with her (ie she would be responsible for wiping asses and noses half the time, which I presume would conflict with her all important career) we could discuss me taking primary custody if we both agreed that was better than full time daycare, but either way she would be providing me child support even in an equal parenting arrangement since the discrepancies in income justify that. If I needed spousal support to get on my own, with my own means of income than I would expect interim spousal support so long as I was making justifiable progress towards my independence, and she could complain all she wants and as long as I wasnt raking her over the coals in order to have the cushiest life possible I wouldn't have anything to feel guilty about.

If I expected my life to be as easy and abundant as before divorce then I would only be creating dissatisfaction for myself, but then I'm not one for receiving ungracious handouts.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

LongWalk said:


> There different scenarios. Alimony is generally connected to the length of the marriage. Say a couple divorce at ages 36 and 37. They have three children, 14, 12 and 10.
> 
> The woman goes for 60/40 custody and wins. She gets child support and alimony. OM (affair partner who busted the marriage) makes more money than ex H. But he remains boyfriend so that alimony is secure.
> 
> Ex-wife works part time since kids are school.
> 
> _Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


How does an affair partner factor in to all your discussions? Honestly, many, many women leave a marriage without another waiting in the wings.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Lon said:


> My career is not the most important thing in my life, it is merely a means to an end. If I had a wife with a high paying job and me staying home to wipe noses and asses and running the home enabled her to focus on her career and secure a healthy income for the family, absolutely I would take that deal.
> 
> Would I wish to be discarded at her whim? No not really but if I did become discarded it would mean she would instantly lose all my support, and she would have to take on a lot higher load to be able to not only maintain her career but other responsibilities. I would expect my share of whatever assets we accumulated together (and debt too if we were in debt) and I would expect to share custody with her (ie she would be responsible for wiping asses and noses half the time, which I presume would conflict with her all important career) we could discuss me taking primary custody if we both agreed that was better than full time daycare, but either way she would be providing me child support even in an equal parenting arrangement since the discrepancies in income justify that. If I needed spousal support to get on my own, with my own means of income than I would expect interim spousal support so long as I was making justifiable progress towards my independence, and she could complain all she wants and as long as I wasnt raking her over the coals in order to have the cushiest life possible I wouldn't have anything to feel guilty about.
> 
> If I expected my life to be as easy and abundant as before divorce then I would only be creating dissatisfaction for myself, but then I'm not one for receiving ungracious handouts.


No she wouldn't. If you were the SAHD and she divorced you, she would have to pay you an amount based off of a formula. If you were unable to live on that which is 99% of the case, it would be up to you to find childcare and pay for that. So after countless years of being a SAHD, tossed aside and what not, you would also bear the responsibility of paying for day care for your kids so you could support yourself. Fair? Hardly. 

I know you live in Canada and I don't know how things work up in the Great North. Allow me to give you a glimpse of how things work in Texas. I have been married for 20 years. I got pregnant in college and dropped out once our son was born and became a SAHM for 7 years between him and his brother. I took my inheritance from my Grandfather and put my husband through graduate school and bought him a car. He graduated with zero debt, unlike 99% of the people in his class. I went to work after both boys were in kindergarten as a receptionist at an investment firm and worked my way up to stockbroker and bond trader. I did that for 11 years, often earning way more than my husband. The business moved to another state and I chose to stay behind. I went to work at a friends accounting firm, when I found out I had cancer. I haven't worked now in two years, yet have been the perfect corporate wife for him hosting parties and furthering his career. If we divorced, I would get child support for only one son despite our 20 year old living here while going to college. I would get 1 year of alimony, despite my enormous sacrifices for him. He makes mid 6 figures while I make nothing. Fair?

There isn't a man here who would trade places with a SAHM. It's complete disrespect from everybody, including the courts. I don't know any man who would give up what he does to stay home and at the end get 1 year severance after losing years of experience and credibility. Not one. So for all the "traditional" people out there, put your money where your mouth is. Otherwise you are hypocrites.


----------



## LongWalk

Therealbrighteyes said:


> How does an affair partner factor in to all your discussions? Honestly, many, many women leave a marriage without another waiting in the wings.


People seem to want to discuss fault. But strike the affair, then.

Infidelity is probably a major factor in divorce. What bothers men who have been dumped – and who is to say what is fair here if courts do not consider fault? – is that there is an economic incentive to divorce if there is then lifetime alimony.


----------



## LongWalk

Therealbrighteyes said:


> No she wouldn't. If you were the SAHD and she divorced you, she would have to pay you an amount based off of a formula. If you were unable to live on that which is 99% of the case, it would be up to you to find childcare and pay for that. So after countless years of being a SAHD, tossed aside and what not, you would also bear the responsibility of paying for day care for your kids so you could support yourself. Fair? Hardly.
> 
> I know you live in Canada and I don't know how things work up in the Great North. Allow me to give you a glimpse of how things work in Texas. I have been married for 20 years. I got pregnant in college and dropped out once our son was born and became a SAHM for 7 years between him and his brother. I took my inheritance from my Grandfather and put my husband through graduate school and bought him a car. He graduated with zero debt, unlike 99% of the people in his class. I went to work after both boys were in kindergarten as a receptionist at an investment firm and worked my way up to stockbroker and bond trader. I did that for 11 years, often earning way more than my husband. The business moved to another state and I chose to stay behind. I went to work at a friends accounting firm, when I found out I had cancer. I haven't worked now in two years, yet have been the perfect corporate wife for him hosting parties and furthering his career. If we divorced, I would get child support for only one son despite our 20 year old living here while going to college. I would get 1 year of alimony, despite my enormous sacrifices for him. He makes mid 6 figures while I make nothing. Fair?


So, Texas doesn't have lifetime alimony for long marriages? Is that the result of a legal reform?

Childbirth takes women out of the labor market. There ought to be compensation for it.

I am living in Scandinavia. There is generally no alimony here. Women who have full-time jobs cannot be fired when they get pregnant. There is paid maternity leave and there paid paternity leave that cannot be transferred to the mother.

SAH spouses much more common in Germany, where the housewife is very involved with raising children.

Clearly anytime one spouse sacrifices his/her career for the other there is potential for unfairness in divorce.

Sorry to hear that you had cancer. Hope you have got it beaten.


----------



## honcho

Now in Wis. where I live, your situation, you would get lifetime alimony and his best case scenario would be aliminy for 10 years if the two of you were amicable. Child support for the one son still a minor is 30% of gross income that is pretty much non-negotioable thats what the state gives here. Also as long as children are full-time students even after 18 child support is often granted till they graduate or till 22. 

Which is one of the other problems with the system, it varies so much from state to state.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



Therealbrighteyes said:


> No she wouldn't. If you were the SAHD and she divorced you, she would have to pay you an amount based off of a formula. If you were unable to live on that which is 99% of the case, it would be up to you to find childcare and pay for that. So after countless years of being a SAHD, tossed aside and what not, you would also bear the responsibility of paying for day care for your kids so you could support yourself. Fair? Hardly.
> 
> I know you live in Canada and I don't know how things work up in the Great North. Allow me to give you a glimpse of how things work in Texas. I have been married for 20 years. I got pregnant in college and dropped out once our son was born and became a SAHM for 7 years between him and his brother. I took my inheritance from my Grandfather and put my husband through graduate school and bought him a car. He graduated with zero debt, unlike 99% of the people in his class. I went to work after both boys were in kindergarten as a receptionist at an investment firm and worked my way up to stockbroker and bond trader. I did that for 11 years, often earning way more than my husband. The business moved to another state and I chose to stay behind. I went to work at a friends accounting firm, when I found out I had cancer. I haven't worked now in two years, yet have been the perfect corporate wife for him hosting parties and furthering his career. If we divorced, I would get child support for only one son despite our 20 year old living here while going to college. I would get 1 year of alimony, despite my enormous sacrifices for him. He makes mid 6 figures while I make nothing. Fair?


Well, with due respect, it is a personal choice.

Absolutely if I was a SAHD and divorced I would have to find work to support myself and that would likely require putting my child in daycare. I know all this before I choose to be a sahd, it is the risk I take before making that decision, with the potential benefit being all those I mentioned above (making a good home).

Like you, I have some intelligence and would be able to make myself gainfully employed after divorce and as period away from work Would my standard of living be worse off then before my divorce? Probably, that is one inescapable nasty consequence of divorce.

In your case, if you divorced, why would you feel entitled to a share of your husband's plush income? If you are contributing equally then you bring to the table just as much as your h does, without your support he won't have the perfect corporate wife. And as replaceable as you may think you are to him, so is he to you (when talking about this in terms of divorce).

If you divorced and received alimony, then ended up finding a job, then he was fired, lost insurance and was stricken with cancer after separating, would you turn around and offer him alimony? No why would you, you are divorced which means no longer responsible for each others choices.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

LongWalk said:


> So, Texas doesn't have lifetime alimony for long marriages? Is that the result of a legal reform?
> 
> Childbirth takes women out of the labor market. There ought to be compensation for it.
> 
> I am living in Scandinavia. There is generally no alimony here. Women who have full-time jobs cannot be fired when they get pregnant. There is paid maternity leave and there paid paternity leave that cannot be transferred to the mother.
> 
> SAH spouses much more common in Germany, where the housewife is very involved with raising children.
> 
> Clearly anytime one spouse sacrifices his/her career for the other there is potential for unfairness in divorce.
> 
> Sorry to hear that you had cancer. Hope you have got it beaten.


Texas has had huge reforms to alimony laws....not all bad. I don't support lifetime alimony whatsoever but they have also gone the opposite way of reason. 

I'm not talking about Scandinavia. My entire family is from Sweden.....I am well aware of how SAHM's are treated there. Few are SAHM's though because child care is provided in the taxes paid. It isn't $1500 a month on top of every other expense/tax taken out. Being a SAHM in Sweden is unheard of because there is no financial benefit for doing so. Here in the States? Many women cannot earn more than $1500 a month after taxes to make it worthwhile so they stay home further getting behind the curve.


----------



## Thor

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You said that a wife should get alimony only if she isn't the one who files or didn't cheat. I'm saying a SAHM should get alimony for a period of time because she gave up her career or potential for one to take care of children/home. Do you disagree with this?
> 
> You are flipping between scenarios. Was the SAHM a total slob who sat on her ass doing nothing, no cooking, leaving the kids to cry in their cribs all day, spending her time on Facebook or whatever? Unless that is the case, your scenario isn't the same.


I oversimplified when I said a SAHM should not get alimony if she files.

I think fault should be a determining factor in alimony.  A person who cheats should not receive alimony. A person who is at fault for the breakdown of the marriage should not receive alimony (i.e. is a drunkard, abusive, etc).

I also do not like the idea of long term alimony in the case of say one spouse becoming a very high earner and the other bails. For example, H becomes successful and is earning $300k. W files for divorce and gets $100k alimony. W has a career and earns $75k herself. This situation just seems wrong to me (assuming no affairs or other bad behavior, they just drifted apart some).

Alimony makes sense in a short term marriage to help someone get education or other job qualifications. For example, the young woman who supported her husband through grad school. She should receive a few years of alimony if he is now high earning, for the specific purpose of getting her own higher qualifications.

In a long term SAHM or SAHD situation alimony may make sense if she/he has been out of the job market for many years.

What makes no sense is for anyone to cause a divorce and then to receive alimony.


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

Lon said:


> Well, with due respect, it is a personal choice.
> 
> Absolutely if I was a SAHD and divorced I would have to find work to support myself and that would likely require putting my child in daycare. I know all this before I choose to be a sahd, it is the risk I take before making that decision, with the potential benefit being all those I mentioned above (making a good home).
> 
> Like you, I have some intelligence and would be able to make myself gainfully employed after divorce and as period away from work Would my standard of living be worse off then before my divorce? Probably, that is one inescapable nasty consequence of divorce.
> 
> In your case, if you divorced, why would you feel entitled to a share of your husband's plush income? If you are contributing equally then you bring to the table just as much as your h does, without your support he won't have the perfect corporate wife. And as replaceable as you may think you are to him, so is he to you (when talking about this in terms of divorce).
> 
> If you divorced and received alimony, then ended up finding a job, then he was fired, lost insurance and was stricken with cancer after separating, would you turn around and offer him alimony? No why would you, you are divorced which means no longer responsible for each others choices.


I cannot follow a single thing you said. Why should I receive a penny of my husbands "plush income"? Perhaps because I contributed to it in every way including spending $127,000 to send him to graduate school, staying home to take care of our children so he could spend all hours advancing his career and me earning more than him for years contributing to our ability to buy our house and other property. Post cancer, I have spent countless hours being the wife who advanced his career getting him the promotion he deserved. He got it, not entirely on his own though. I knew plenty of people at his company, invited them over for dinner and wined and dined them to win them over. My husband got his promotion 3 weeks later in no small part because of me, his boss even said as much.


----------



## greenfern

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Oh there's plenty of benefit....to the husband and kids. The wife? Not so much. Would you give up your career to stay home wiping asses and noses, cooking and cleaning only to be tossed aside at her whim when she decides she wants out, being at her mercy for support which would last a year or two tops? Who other than a delusional woman would sign up for that deal? Nobody, that's who and that's why I tell young women don't ever, EVER become a SAHM. Not only will you be screwed career wise, your ex-husband will have the gaul to complain that he has to give you a dime of "his" money. Again, no thanks.


:iagree:


----------



## greenfern

I have honestly never considered the argument that men lose their SAHM "services" after divorce...so interesting!

I have thought more about it though, and I'm not sure I agree with the theory. I was in this situation (I was the working parent and my x was SAHD). I can say that when we separated and for the period I paid alimony I didn't miss his services at all. When I didn't have the kids my life was pretty darn easy, no house to maintain (lived in an apartment), and I didn't miss the things he used to do to make my life easier. I mean making my own meal? Doing my own laundry? Really not a big deal. No responsibilities other than work.

Now, when I had the kids was a totally different story! Then I missed the services. I'll tell you the most frustrating thing is paying alimony while having 50/50 custody...you still have half the work of having kids but you also have to work full time.


----------



## LongWalk

Therealbrighteyes said:


> Texas has had huge reforms to alimony laws....not all bad. I don't support lifetime alimony whatsoever but they have also gone the opposite way of reason.
> 
> I'm not talking about Scandinavia. My entire family is from Sweden.....I am well aware of how SAHM's are treated there. Few are SAHM's though because child care is provided in the taxes paid. It isn't $1500 a month on top of every other expense/tax taken out. *Being a SAHM in Sweden is unheard of because there is no financial benefit for doing so.* Here in the States? Many women cannot earn more than $1500 a month after taxes to make it worthwhile so they stay home further getting behind the curve.


in fact, most dump their kids in state subsidized daycare at the age of one. There is a lot of pressure against SAHM in the Swedish media; they are considered traitors to their gender.

I thought that in the US there were many families in which both spouses worked because single income household cannot cope.

Kan du svenska?


----------



## LongWalk

Thor said:


> I oversimplified when I said a SAHM should not get alimony if she files.
> 
> I think fault should be a determining factor in alimony. A person who cheats should not receive alimony. A person who is at fault for the breakdown of the marriage should not receive alimony (i.e. is a drunkard, abusive, etc).
> 
> I also do not like the idea of long term alimony in the case of say one spouse becoming a very high earner and the other bails. For example, H becomes successful and is earning $300k. W files for divorce and gets $100k alimony. W has a career and earns $75k herself. This situation just seems wrong to me (assuming no affairs or other bad behavior, they just drifted apart some).
> 
> Alimony makes sense in a short term marriage to help someone get education or other job qualifications. For example, the young woman who supported her husband through grad school. She should receive a few years of alimony if he is now high earning, for the specific purpose of getting her own higher qualifications.
> 
> In a long term SAHM or SAHD situation alimony may make sense if she/he has been out of the job market for many years.
> 
> What makes no sense is for anyone to cause a divorce and then to receive alimony.


What you propose would be fairer. Investigation of alcoholism would be easy. Investigation of adultery would be difficult. Courts couldn't bear it.

The prenuptual agreement create a means of thwarting the intentions of the legal system. The problem with prenups is that they look like a statement of no confidence before the wedding has even booked venue. A person requesting a prenup almost has to have a reason, such as my brother made me promise to do it to protect our business assets.

I think there should be two types of marriages: regular ones, the sort we have today, and a traditional contract based on vows. This traditional marriage could only be dissolved if a partner failed to up hold his/his obligation. Cheating would be penalized, perhaps by the additional rule that cheaters must pay the legal cost of the BS.

The court would offer fault rulings.

This heavy traditional version of marriage, would it be popular? To whom would it appeal?


----------



## Therealbrighteyes

LongWalk said:


> in fact, most dump their kids in state subsidized daycare at the age of one. There is a lot of pressure against SAHM in the Swedish media; they are considered traitors to their gender.
> 
> I thought that in the US there were many families in which both spouses worked because single income household cannot cope.
> 
> Kan du svenska?


You are not from any Scandinavian country are you? I do love how you claim to know about Sweden when you are neither from there or spent an ounce of time there given your ridiculous "Swedish". People in Sweden put their kids in daycare because being a SAHM isn't fetished like it is in the States and they realize that kids do just fine outside the home. In fact, they do better. Sweden consistently ranks the highest in education globally and all speak several languages. You cannot graduate from high school there without speaking Swedish, English and either German, French or Spanish. They consistently rank as the smartest in the world and they hold the highest patents of any country on Earth despite being a place of only 7 million. 

It's "Kan du prata Svenska". Don't even bother, I could kick your ass.


----------



## wilderness

Therealbrighteyes said:


> You are not from any Scandinavian country are you? I do love how you claim to know about Sweden when you are neither from there or spent an ounce of time there given your ridiculous "Swedish". People in Sweden put their kids in daycare because being a SAHM isn't fetished like it is in the States and they realize that kids do just fine outside the home. In fact, they do better. Sweden consistently ranks the highest in education globally and all speak several languages. You cannot graduate from high school there without speaking Swedish, English and either German, French or Spanish. They consistently rank as the smartest in the world and they hold the highest patents of any country on Earth despite being a place of only 7 million.
> 
> It's "Kan du prata Svenska". Don't even bother, I could kick your ass.


Kids do not do better outside the home. That is flat out nonsense imo. Speaking languages and being 'smart' do not equate to fulfillment, either.


----------



## Onthefenc

Alimony should be a temporary thing. Much like child support imo. 

When kids are young, it is often more beneficial for one parent to stop working. However, as the children enter school. Both should return to the work force. Those who dont are not maximizing their value, hence should not be compensated for it in the event of a divorce. 

And what if the working spouse WANTS the other to work and they refuse, or refuse to work full time, or in a position that will pay them for their skills and education level.


----------



## berries

I homeschool my kids. Successfully launched the oldest off to college with a full ride academic scholarship, therefor saving my husband college tuition for her. I launch the next one in a year, and his odds look good too for scholarships.

I have invested years in our children giving them a first-rate education that has essentially been like having a personal tutor for each child. I still have another 2 to school, the youngest is 11.

Do I want alimony to finish what I started and do what we both believed was in the best educational interests of our kids? You bet I do. Not my fault he couldn't stop cheating.


----------



## PBear

berries said:


> I homeschool my kids. Successfully launched the oldest off to college with a full ride academic scholarship, therefor saving my husband college tuition for her. I launch the next one in a year, and his odds look good too for scholarships.
> 
> I have invested years in our children giving them a first-rate education that has essentially been like having a personal tutor for each child. I still have another 2 to school, the youngest is 11.
> 
> Do I want alimony to finish what I started and do what we both believed was in the best educational interests of our kids? You bet I do. Not my fault he couldn't stop cheating.


But that's child support more so than alimony...

C


----------



## honcho

Yes Berries, he cheated and you have been married a long time. In my state you would automatically get 31% of gross and 50% for alimony for 10 years maybe longer if the lawyer is good. Obviously he cant afford 81% of salary going to you so he falls into arrears on back alimony thus he runs into potentially going to jail for back payments. He broke "your contract" in the marriage hes gonna pay a dear price. We aren't saying you aren't entitled to compensation. 

Now say he never cheated and you decided that the 30 year old deadbeat paperboy is now the new love of your life and you pack up the kids and move in with him. Now after a couple of months the paperboy now finds a new love and your out. Exactly why is your stbx responsible for maintaining your lifestyle when you voluntarily chose to leave. Taking the child support completely out of the argument. Why would you be entitled to 50% of his income? You were more than happy to leave him and live on the paperboy salary because you were in love at the time. If you were still living with the paperboy at time of divorce you wouldn't receive alimony. Why does your ex-hubby get penalized because it didn't work out with your new guy? 

That's the problem with alimony in no-fault states.


----------



## Onthefenc

berries said:


> I homeschool my kids. Successfully launched the oldest off to college with a full ride academic scholarship, therefor saving my husband college tuition for her. I launch the next one in a year, and his odds look good too for scholarships.
> 
> I have invested years in our children giving them a first-rate education that has essentially been like having a personal tutor for each child. I still have another 2 to school, the youngest is 11.
> 
> Do I want alimony to finish what I started and do what we both believed was in the best educational interests of our kids? You bet I do. Not my fault he couldn't stop cheating.


Did you both decide you should home school? I insisted my wife return to the workforce when my kids started school. If it was your choice then i dont see how you should be entitled to alimony. Cs? Sure. 

I think americans in general have grown to accustomed to things being entitled.


----------



## Thor

A couple sets up arrangements which are acceptable to them both, at least they are acceptable enough not to cause one to leave at the beginning. Thus, in a homeschooling situation or a SAHM/SAHD situation we should presume both people agreed to the arrangement.

To me, this is why alimony was originally a good thing. Women were generally not capable of earning enough to support the family, whereas men typically did. Most women stayed home with the kids at least until the kids were all in school. Even then, most women never worked more than a part time school schedule job. The mother and father both agreed the priority was for Mom to spend a majority of her time raising the kids and keeping the house.

Obviously it would be unfair to the woman to dump her on the street without a way to earn a similar lifestyle, especially if the husband were the one initiating the divorce.

Around here the traditional model is still popular. Though many of the women have college degrees and could get into the workforce, they stay home with the kids.

The disconnect is that there are now no-fault divorces and no-fault alimony. The system encourages the low earner to initiate divorce without consequences. The system punishes the high earner even if they are the BS, and even if they then wanted to R but the WS decides to D.


----------



## berries

Yes, my husband heartily agreed to me homeschooling the kids. And it has paid off in many ways. 

Our divorce will not be no fault. In my state you can still have an at fault divorce and I have the evidence to prove fault. 

And by the time I get the youngest child into college, the odds that I can then go out and get a job and make it and have any kind of retirement built up like my husband has? Unlikely.

So yes, I expect lifetime alimony and I am taking half of his pension and half of his retirement.

As for any other scenarios? That isn't for me to decide. But in my case specifically, yes, my husband will get to PAY for the games he decided to play. Games aren't free.


----------



## Feeling-Lonely

People should talk money, like my husband bought a house before we were married, even if I live in it with him and make diner it still doesn't make it 50% mine. . 

It crazy how the sahw can screw her h over and the curt let it happen.


----------



## Feeling-Lonely

I have to admit that in my experience there is just one place that tops U.S. in feminism and it is Sweden.  
It makes sense at some level but it also gets ridiculous like rights to swim topless  and both male and female crosswalk signs  

I like going to Sweden, been there countless times since I was raised up near that region, the feminism was the only thing I didn't like and found unnatural and forced.


----------



## Onthefenc

berries said:


> Yes, my husband heartily agreed to me homeschooling the kids. And it has paid off in many ways.
> 
> Our divorce will not be no fault. In my state you can still have an at fault divorce and I have the evidence to prove fault.
> 
> And by the time I get the youngest child into college, the odds that I can then go out and get a job and make it and have any kind of retirement built up like my husband has? Unlikely.
> 
> So yes, I expect lifetime alimony and I am taking half of his pension and half of his retirement.
> 
> As for any other scenarios? That isn't for me to decide. But in my case specifically, yes, my husband will get to PAY for the games he decided to play. Games aren't free.


So you think you should be able to go the rest of your life without working? Or getting retrained in a career that would produce.


----------



## berries

I am more than willing to work when my children have all been educated. THAT IS my job right now. It is not just a hobby, I put my heart and soul into it. So let's see, 7 years from now I will be 46 years old. I do have a bachelor's degree that I have never used.

At 46 with a degree and the only work experience being what I did as a teenager what do you think the odds are of me getting a job and having the benefits that my husband will have having put in 24 years at his current job by then. And he doesn't even have the college degree that I do.

Should I have to work until I am 80 because my husband decided to make changes to our marriage contract without consulting me first? The fact is, he wouldn't even have the job he does had it not been for me. I have supported him, I have taken care of everything for him for 21 years. Am I to be considered a slave for the years of work I have done for him? I didn't draw a paycheck and if the only thing that matters is money then he owes me a good chunk of change in back pay. I don't even have enough work credits to collect social security.


----------



## Onthefenc

Well, if you are speaking options, you could send your child to public school, attain an advanced degree, or simply gain experience, re-entering the workforce. 7 years from now you could be pretty well off. People begin new careers all the time. Temporary alimony would afford you that opportunity. Pensions and what not are a separate issue. As a man, sometimes i do what i WANT to do. Most times i do what i have to do. Why should a woman be different.


----------



## berries

My husband, as a man WANTED to cheat. He is the one who decided to change the rules I thought we had both agreed to. I already let him get by with one affair 4 years ago. This was his 2nd chance. He decided he WANTED to have another affair, only this time to really stick it to me by having his affair with my best friend of 26 years.

Should my children have to be the ones who suffer because their father likes cheating? Our public schools here are crap and I am not sacrificing their education because of this POS. He may have decided that we all don't matter,that doesn't mean I have to agree with him.

And we haven't even touched the issue of healthcare yet. COBRA for just me is $550 per month. And thanks to his decisions I need antidepressant and anti-anxiety prescriptions every month.

Why should I not be compensated for the 21 years of work I have put into this household? Because I am a woman and that is "expected" of me? He has had dinner on the table, clean underwear, and a willing and able sex partner. I haven't "let myself go" or any other lame excuse. So tell me, is the private tutoring and all household services that I have provided and to which he agreed to support until death do we part not matter because he wanted to "step out"?

I do things I don't want to do all the time too. Don't think that only men do that. 

My former best friend has had multiple affairs on her husband. Now my husband is another notch in her belt. Her husband makes 6 figures. She homeschools too except her oldest flunked out of community college and her 15 year old has a 2nd grade math education. She doesn't really homeschool though, she's too busy having affairs. DO I think she deserves a cent? Hell no. But she won't leave her husband, she loves the money. I hope her husband takes the evidence I provided him and gets an at fault divorce too and then she will get no alimony, which is exactly what she deserves.

I don't think having a penis or not should have any bearing. But my husband has opportunities I don't. I would have never cheated because I don't bite the hand that feeds me. But I will be damned if I'm going to be starved because he couldn't realize how good he actually had it.


----------



## Onthefenc

Ill just agree to disagree with you. 

I dont think anyone NEEDS meds, homeschooling, etc. they are self imposed. I dont think alimony should be awarded based on punitive measures, but need based. If your husband forbid you to work then i really have no issue. But hypothetically speaking, if he asked you to work and you refused so you could homeschool, then i dont see how you would be compensated. 

As far as being compensated for 21 yrs, i would say you were just as compensated as he was. A roof over your head, food, clothing, creature comforts. What did he have in material possessions that you didnt? 

I know you are hurt. but try to separate yourself from the situation and examine it from an outsider. Lets assume you just didnt want to be there anymore, or him. No adultery. Should you be given less because of that? Or should you or he just suck it up and live in misery?


----------



## berries

So, I was able to get work credits to collect social security for 21 years? Build up seniority in a company? Contribute to a 401k? Some things you can't put an exact dollar figure on but he has definite advantages that at this point I can NEVER equal. So you may not consider those things material possessions that he had over me but compare our situations with each other 20 years from now. It is decidedly unequal.

Now, I admit, I took on risk by trusting him not to leave me in such a situation. That was foolish of me, I thought he was a better person than he is.

I don't think there is ever a one size fits all answer. I already gave the example of my ex-friend and how our situations are different.

And I am going to HIGHLY disagree with you that medicine is optional. It isn't optional for my husband but now I am supposed to consider it frivolous? 

My husband did not ask me to work. At first, we were quite poor and I could not make enough money to pay the daycare costs so it made more financial sense for me to work. Then I went to college part-time using pell grants and earning academic and music scholarships. My husband did not have to pay for my education and I arranged my class schedule around his work schedule so that we never had to pay for a sitter because we could not have afforded one at that time. The original plan was that I would eventually get my degree and when the kids went to school I would go to work. 

Then my 8 year-old-daughter was being bullied mercilessly at that "great public school". They weren't so great after all and I started homeschooling and finished my degree too. So our plans changed, but they were changes both my husband and I agreed to.

The affairs change in plans? I wasn't consulted.

I do think that awards should be different based on at fault or no fault. But every state is different about those things.


----------



## berries

So, I was able to get work credits to collect social security for 21 years? Build up seniority in a company? Contribute to a 401k? Some things you can't put an exact dollar figure on but he has definite advantages that at this point I can NEVER equal. So you may not consider those things material possessions that he had over me but compare our situations with each other 20 years from now. It is decidedly unequal.

Now, I admit, I took on risk by trusting him not to leave me in such a situation. That was foolish of me, I thought he was a better person than he is.

I don't think there is ever a one size fits all answer. I already gave the example of my ex-friend and how our situations are different.

And I am going to HIGHLY disagree with you that medicine is optional. It isn't optional for my husband but now I am supposed to consider it frivolous? 

My husband did not ask me to work. At first, we were quite poor and I could not make enough money to pay the daycare costs so it made more financial sense for me to work. Then I went to college part-time using pell grants and earning academic and music scholarships. My husband did not have to pay for my education and I arranged my class schedule around his work schedule so that we never had to pay for a sitter because we could not have afforded one at that time. The original plan was that I would eventually get my degree and when the kids went to school I would go to work. 

Then my 8 year-old-daughter was being bullied mercilessly at that "great public school". They weren't so great after all and I started homeschooling and finished my degree too. So our plans changed, but they were changes both my husband and I agreed to.

The affairs change in plans? I wasn't consulted.

I do think that awards should be different based on at fault or no fault. But every state is different about those things.


----------



## Onthefenc

You still have time to work enough to collect ss. A 401k is common property, it gets split. I think medication for psych issues are frivolous for anyone. Maybe not all, but antidepressants are handed out like candy. Im a product of public schools. I was bullied, worked my way through it. I did pretty well for myself. It happens to everyone. If parents removed kids from public schools every time they were bullied, there would be no kids left in the school. Point is if you had options. Or was it your decision to pull your kids out? Or your husbands? 

Im not picking on you, im picking on an archaic system imo. One that was more suited when women did not receive educations, vote, or work. Its just out dated. Women are more educated than men now. And earning just as much. If they want to. Thats the part i have a problem with. If tbey want to.


----------



## Thor

Onthefenc said:


> I dont think anyone NEEDS meds, homeschooling, etc. they are self imposed. I dont think alimony should be awarded based on punitive measures, but need based. If your husband forbid you to work then i really have no issue. But hypothetically speaking, if he asked you to work and you refused so you could homeschool, then i dont see how you would be compensated.
> .
> .
> .
> I know you are hurt. but try to separate yourself from the situation and examine it from an outsider. Lets assume you just didnt want to be there anymore, or him. No adultery. Should you be given less because of that? Or should you or he just suck it up and live in misery?


I'd like to butt in here and offer an opinion.

First, we are discussing an At-Fault situation with Berries. Her husband cheated. He destroyed the marriage. That counts for something in deciding what is fair or not.

Secondly, the two of them agreed that for their family and their children a certain arrangement was best. For Berries' family it was home schooling. Regardless of her education or other qualifications, he agreed she should be a SAHM and the kids should be home schooled.

Furthermore, due to the long term of the marriage her earning potential is a lot less than it would have been had she gone into the work force right from college.

This is precisely the situation alimony was invented to cover.

I also think it reasonable to keep the kids in home school if at all feasible. After all, hubby thought it was desirable for many years. If it just is not possible due to finances, then it just isn't possible.

We can imagine all kinds of counter examples, and I believe that is why fault needs to be part of the equation. What if SAHM cheats on her high earning loyal husband? It would not be fair for hubby to pay her alimony for life when he is the betrayed one. What if bored SAHM or SAHD decides they shouldn't have married for money, and divorce the high earning spouse? The bored one should not be rewarded with alimony for decades.

Short term marriages present much less justification for alimony beyond a short period of job training.

In my state the goal is to equalize the incomes of the two spouses. It is conceptually fair if fault is considered, though in practice quite unfair because fault is not considered.


----------



## honcho

Berries, you actually can collect social security based off your stbx wages. That law has been in place for years for stay at home moms and long term marriages. Its either 15 or 20 years of marriage to qualify. My mother collects it based off my fathers earnings and he has been dead for years and were divorced when he died. When she turned 62 she could collect off what he paid in so you are not correct on that assumption. Check with your attorney on that. 


Speaking only for myself, I don’t think anyone here would say your aren’t entitled to some compensation. But that the same time, your kids will be gone and you will be 46. Are you just planning on sitting in an empty house for the rest of time. You are entitled to alimony, I agree. A lifetime of it, no in my opinion but I am not trying to argue about your situation. Read my scenario and please tell me how a person would be entitled to alimony based on that. That is what is flawed in the entire system

You may very well get awarded lifetime alimony, if you do good for you. Now have you thought about the possibility that say 3 months after your divorce your stbx dies. What are you going to do then? Again I will reference my own life experience after my parents divorced, my father made a great deal of money she got a huge alimony award. Not two months after he died of a heart attack. NO MONEY. She lost the big fancy house, the nice cars…everything. 

A co-worker of mine, 20 years of marriage, divorced, he was to pay alimony. He was cutting down a tree 7 months after divorce, tree fell on him and he is paralyzed. No possible way to work. 

Its only my opinion but you should think of a plan b for yourself. You never know what can happen.


----------



## Lon

Honcho, that's why some jurisdictions not only rule alimony but also force the breadwinner to have an insurance policy in place with the ex as the beneficiary.


----------



## honcho

some may require it, most dont. If policies are in place prior to divorce they usually cant change beneficiaries for a period of time. While the court may actually require it, enforcement is extremely hard and many many times the person just quits paying on a policy because no one thinks about it after a period of time. My father did just that, quit paying the policy. The insurance co. denied the claim for non-payment. 

in case of disability like my co-worker, there isnt any insurance so other than a government disability check which gets sucked up by medical bills their isnt anything to get.


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



honcho said:


> some may require it, most dont. If policies are in place prior to divorce they usually cant change beneficiaries for a period of time. While the court may actually require it, enforcement is extremely hard and many many times the person just quits paying on a policy because no one thinks about it after a period of time. My father did just that, quit paying the policy. The insurance co. denied the claim for non-payment.
> 
> in case of disability like my co-worker, there isnt any insurance so other than a government disability check which gets sucked up by medical bills their isnt anything to get.


In my case, the separation/divorce required that we retain reach other as beneficiaries on any existing policies. But it didn't stipulate that we couldn't terminate the policies. With term life this isn't really a big deal, I so happened to change my policy to have my son as the beneficiary in trust and named my mother the trustee, and my ex surprisingly signed off on that. I just recently cancelled the policy. If it was whole life or universal life insurance it would be a little more complicated since the equity that builds in such a scheme is technically community property.


----------



## Feeling-Lonely

AM I the only one who believes that someone cheating is a result of both partners neglecting their responsibilities and are both at fault for the affair? 

Yes, the cheater more but be realistic, no happy man cheat for cheating sake, and if there are cases like that out there then it is your fault too because you got involved with person like that. 

Food for thought?


----------



## Thor

I'd say you are in a very small minority on this forum with your opinion.


----------



## soccermom2three

Feeling-Lonely said:


> AM I the only one who believes that someone cheating is a result of both partners neglecting their responsibilities and are both at fault for the affair?
> 
> Yes, the cheater more but be realistic, no happy man cheat for cheating sake, and if there are cases like that out there then it is your fault too because you got involved with person like that.
> 
> Food for thought?


You've got to be kidding, right?


----------



## lifeistooshort

This is exactly why I think it's ridiculous for someone to stay at home. Marriages fall apart all the time for a lot of reasons, and they all leave the stay at home in the same position of decreased earning potential. What if your spouse doesn't cheat but just treats you like crap? Less alimony because it's not as bad a cheating? Or if you both want a stay at home, draft a legal agreement in advance outlining terms, conditions, and consequences. But like someone else pointed out even if you do that people die, become disabled, and lose their jobs. It's ludicrous to bank your entire financial future on someone else. I have two boys and they've both been bullied; I taught them self defense (I have a black belt) and talked to them about how pathetic bullies are and they don't get bullied anymore. They're doing great in public school, I stay on top of their work regularly. And as a former teacher I can say that a lot of parents really aren't qualified to home school anyway; maybe very little kids but after that not so much. This is just my opinion, it and 10 cents will get you a cup of coffee, and not even a good Starbucks coffee.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## Feeling-Lonely

soccermom2three said:


> You've got to be kidding, right?


No, not really,
My dad cheated and my mum was just as at fault as my dad, who is saying that neglecting someone completely is better than cheating? That is just selfish and one sided. Also after the divorce my dad ended up taking care of all kids because my mum was just as absentminded in parenting than in her marriage.

In this case the OP may have neglected her H, yes he cheated but how long ago did they stop loving each other? She could of stayed for financial reasons.

Did they go to MC after the first affair, did they try to fix things? Or was he just punished every day for his mistake, can you imagine living like that?

I am just saying, I have seen the cold housewife type, how can they believe that doing laundry and cooking is hard as making career?

OP, I don't know you and I am not suggesting that this is your case, I am saying that putting all cheaters in one bag is shortsighted.


----------



## Morgiana

Feeling-Lonely said:


> No, not really,
> My dad cheated and my mum was just as at fault as my dad, who is saying that neglecting someone completely is better than cheating? That is just selfish and one sided. Also after the divorce my dad ended up taking care of all kids because my mum was just as absentminded in parenting than in her marriage.
> 
> In this case the OP may have neglected her H, yes he cheated but how long ago did they stop loving each other? She could of stayed for financial reasons.
> 
> Did they go to MC after the first affair, did they try to fix things? Or was he just punished every day for his mistake, can you imagine living like that?
> 
> I am just saying, I have seen the cold housewife type, how can they believe that doing laundry and cooking is hard as making career?
> 
> OP, I don't know you and I am not suggesting that this is your case, I am saying that putting all cheaters in one bag is shortsighted.


And this is why I think alimony should be based only on financial and time criteria; not on any other factors. Just as alimony shouldn't be used to punish a cheater, it shouldn't be used to vindicate a betrayed spouse. It is purely a means by which two people who have entertwined their financial futures together for a good stretch of years have to split up the tangible goods after.


----------



## Feeling-Lonely

Also I will send kids to public school so they can learn social skill. I had a friend who memorized "π" 60 numbers after coma BUT had very very bad social skills. Does home schooling teach kids social skills, I don't think so.

I don't like two things about this country, the nothing is my fault attitude and feminism. Actually any -ism. The idea that someone deserves particular treatment just because they fall into some category and not because their personality to me seems lunatic. 

Example - At my H work there is this woman that is terrible employee. Any other person would have already been fired, in fact some guys have been fired for far less but it is impossible to fire her because she goes to the union and claims that the reason the management is trying to get rid of her is because she is a woman. What can you say to that?? Guess who is picking up her slack? My H. 

I know this is off subject but I am just tired of these people who claims to be faultless.


----------



## Thor

Feeling-Lonely said:


> No, not really,
> My dad cheated and my mum was just as at fault as my dad, who is saying that neglecting someone completely is better than cheating? That is just selfish and one sided. Also after the divorce my dad ended up taking care of all kids because my mum was just as absentminded in parenting than in her marriage.


Apparently your parents (and millions of other couples) felt that nothing crossed the line which would cause them to divorce. Until the infidelity. We look in from outside of their marriage and see all kinds of faults and bad behavior prior to the infidelity. Obviously both partners contribute to this dysfunctional marriage.

Yet they stay together though those bad times.

Until the infidelity. The infidelity is the deal breaker. Infidelity is the choice of the cheater. Infidelity is an action taken by the cheater. The cheater crosses a line which causes the breakup.

Had the cheater not cheated, apparently the couple would have stayed together. This is where I think fault can be assigned to the cheater. There were other choices which were honorable, such as staying as is, staying and trying to improve things, or divorce.

If the couple had gone to divorce prior to the cheating it would have been easy to see the joint responsibility for the divorce, and thus alimony might be warranted based on finances, ages, length of marriage, work history, etc.


----------



## Feeling-Lonely

In many cases the cheating is the deal breaker, my mum wanted to stay married and continuing being SAHM and keep doing things in a C minus manner, because that was easy for her. My dad filed for D'v.

Because of this life experience I have my separate bank account, car on my name, and we know exactly what assets are whose in a case of D'v. Sounds unromantic, I am just trying to take care of myself, that is the best thing I can do for my kids (future kids) and myself. 

I would never be SAHM for long, hell no. 

I am almost glad that I learned what I learned at such young age, some may think that I am messed up for life but I think I know better now.


----------



## honcho

Keeping assets in only one name, separate bank accounts doesn't mean squat to a divorce court unless you live in a state without any community prop laws. If keep it that way lets you sleep better at night that's great but a judge and lawyers don't care, half is someone elses.

I my marriage we kept separate bank accounts, cars in each persons name. She did what she wanted with her hard earned money, I did what I wanted with my hard earned money. I paid all the bills etc. I had my investments, she had hers. We kept everything separate and it worked just fine for 15 years. We never, ever fought about money. Yet now we have to split everything according to an outdated, unrealistic legal system.


----------



## berries

I did not post here to have people tell me what they think about me homeschooling. I do not give a rip about your opinions on socialization and if you think bullying is socialization then hey, it is your kids, you can make them be put through hell as much as you want.

You do not know me, you do not know my kids. But the fact that I homeschooled my oldest successfully enough for her to get full ride academic scholarships, she is a junior in college with a 3.9 and just earned another scholarship to study abroad in France this summer blows your theory that parents cannot homeschool older kids well out of the water. I know teachers hate homeschoolers, I deal with them every day. But I did not post those circumstance so that someone who is using his anecdotal evidence as proof that homeschooling isn't good could criticize my job. Why don't you look at the real numbers instead of spouting off about something you know nothing about? Oh BTW, I have a degree in Education too.

As for whether my husband dies, he has to leave me as the beneficiary. If he becomes disabled we have long and short term disability that he has to share with me. Also, if he were to die, my children would receive social security benefits for him. I know that I am entitled to draw off of his social security. My point was that I don't have the credits to collect my own because I have been taking care of our family. Which according to some of you, is worthless. I have no patience for misogyny. I have done my job flawlessly. My husband is the one with issues. I even have evidence where he says he doesn't want our 2 youngest kids. SO should he not have to pay child support for them since now at 13 and 11 he doesn't want them anymore?


----------



## berries

For me personally, after my husband's first affair I did go to counseling, we set boundaries, and I truly though it was a one-time mistake. I did not bash him over the head with it ever. I never mentioned it again until now that he has had his 2nd. Now, it is a pattern, a character flaw. He violated our boundaries, knew he was doing it and said he didn't care because this was his exit affair. So last night, he left. 4 days before Christmas and has no plans to see his children over the holidays. He is on vacation from work until January 2nd and has chosen to spend it alone (or so he says).


----------



## lifeistooshort

berries said:


> I did not post here to have people tell me what they think about me homeschooling. I do not give a rip about your opinions on socialization and if you think bullying is socialization then hey, it is your kids, you can make them be put through hell as much as you want.
> 
> You do not know me, you do not know my kids. But the fact that I homeschooled my oldest successfully enough for her to get full ride academic scholarships, she is a junior in college with a 3.9 and just earned another scholarship to study abroad in France this summer blows your theory that parents cannot homeschool older kids well out of the water. I know teachers hate homeschoolers, I deal with them every day. But I did not post those circumstance so that someone who is using his anecdotal evidence as proof that homeschooling isn't good could criticize my job. Why don't you look at the real numbers instead of spouting off about something you know nothing about? Oh BTW, I have a degree in Education too.
> 
> As for whether my husband dies, he has to leave me as the beneficiary. If he becomes disabled we have long and short term disability that he has to share with me. Also, if he were to die, my children would receive social security benefits for him. I know that I am entitled to draw off of his social security. My point was that I don't have the credits to collect my own because I have been taking care of our family. Which according to some of you, is worthless. I have no patience for misogyny. I have done my job flawlessly. My husband is the one with issues. I even have evidence where he says he doesn't want our 2 youngest kids. SO should he not have to pay child support for them since now at 13 and 11 he doesn't want them anymore?


First of all, its completely unnecessary to get your back up if you're confident in your choices. How do you know I haven't looked at numbers? Where do you get yours? And don't quote statistics to me, I deal with them for a living and as such know how easy they are to manipulate to say anything you want. Teachers don't hate homeschooling parents as it has nothing to do with their jobs, they just hate getting kids from a homeschool environment that aren't prepared (and yes, I saw that quite a few times). But they also get unprepared kids from other teachers. Most parents that homeschool DON'T have educational backgrounds, so clearly that doesn't apply to you. Good for you. But kids also go to college from public school all the time, kids study abroad after going to public school, so the idea that your kids only accomplished these things because they were homeschooled isn't necessarily true. But either way they turned out great so whatever.
Second, you are a great example of why its such a big risk to stay home; look at the financial position you're in after all you've contributed. Of course he should pay support for his kids, and of course your contributions were/are valuable. This isn't an argument as to the value of stay at home parents, its an argument regarding the risk. I'll say it again: marriages fall apart all the time for a variety of reasons and if you can't support yourself it really doesn't matter what happened, your position is the same. Its a big risk to your future.
For whatever its worth, I'm sorry you're hb is an a$$.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## LongWalk

I think women should get credit for having borne children. What sort of scheme would be fair? I don't know.

Sah parents of either gender are not necessary once the kids go to school. Maybe in grade school one spouse can can only work 50 - 85%. But by junior high and high school kids should have after school activities that they can go to.

_Posted via *Topify* using iPhone/iPad_


----------



## berries

I am confident in my choices but I have people judging me all the freaking time for them. Like somehow the decision I make for my kids reflect on them? So if you are going to bash homeschooling, then I am going to respond.

I have seen good and bad homeschoolers too. And I have seen some really crappy schools and teachers too. So your point is what exactly?

I know I took a risk in relying on my husband. But he took the biggest risk by having 2 affairs. So now he gets to pay for those.

And if I seem sensitive? He left last night. My emotions are raw so I'd appreciate the attacks on my choices to stop until I have had a chance to come up for air. Thank you.


----------



## jld

Hi, berries. We homeschool, too. Our dd got such high scores on her SAT and ACT that we are paying very little for college. Homeschooling works!

And congrats on that scholarship to France!


----------



## berries

What I didn't mention about that scholarship to France is that there were 3 and they were all different amounts. My daughter got the highest amount based on her essay and GPA. The other 2 went to public school. So yes, they got scholarships too. They just came in behind my woefully undersocialized homeschooled kid.


----------



## jld

berries said:


> What I didn't mention about that scholarship to France is that there were 3 and they were all different amounts. My daughter got the highest amount based on her essay and GPA. The other 2 went to public school. So yes, they got scholarships too. They just came in behind my woefully undersocialized homeschooled kid.


Lol! I am sure your daughter is wonderful!

May I ask where in France she is going? Dh is from Normandy, and we used to live in Picardy. 

France really is such a beautiful country.


----------



## lifeistooshort

We as women are judged no matter what we do. I know three homeschool families right now and they all think their kids are better than everyone else's. I also know a number of stay at home moms in my neighborhood that regularly sh!t talk those of us that work outside because we don't make every school event there is and we're not "raising our kids". That's our world; work and someone else is raising your kids, stay home and you're not contributing (as evidenced by the advice on this board to men with problems with stay at home wives to cut off her money), you homeschool and you don't have to, public school and homeschooling is better. You can't win, and that's why everyone tends to be defensive, but all you can do is make the choices you think best and protect yourself. .That's why I advocated a legal agreement to be signed when both parties agree to this arrangement.
I'm truly sorry about your hb and in deference to that I will say no more except this: what he sees of your kids now is out of your hands. My ex also didn't see much of our boys in the early days of our divorce because he hated me more than he loved them. I would tell them that their father had issues that had nothing to do with them and hopefully he'd resolve them and start seeing them in a healthy mindset. Eventually he did but it took a few years; I never took any crap from him but I also never put him down to them. I assured them they were safe, we both loved them, and everything would be ok. It was and you will be too. And yes, he should pay.
_Posted via Mobile Device_


----------



## berries

She will be in Paris. She has some days that are free days though and she plans to make the most of them. And luckily speaks excellent French. She is dying to go to Normandy and Nice. I am so proud of her.

And then my oldest son is starting college next fall. Looks like a full ride academic scholarship for him too and he currently holds down a full time job. So undersocialized these people are. How will they ever make it in the real world? Oh wait, they already are.


----------



## jld

Sounds like fun. Congrats to you both!


----------



## Lon

*Re: Re: Problem with Alimony*



Feeling-Lonely said:


> No, not really,
> My dad cheated and my mum was just as at fault as my dad, who is saying that neglecting someone completely is better than cheating? That is just selfish and one sided. Also after the divorce my dad ended up taking care of all kids because my mum was just as absentminded in parenting than in her marriage.
> 
> In this case the OP may have neglected her H, yes he cheated but how long ago did they stop loving each other? She could of stayed for financial reasons.
> 
> Did they go to MC after the first affair, did they try to fix things? Or was he just punished every day for his mistake, can you imagine living like that?
> 
> I am just saying, I have seen the cold housewife type, how can they believe that doing laundry and cooking is hard as making career?
> 
> OP, I don't know you and I am not suggesting that this is your case, I am saying that putting all cheaters in one bag is shortsighted.


As I am the OP of this thread I feel compelled to respond to your comment. First I will disclose that was the loyal husband, she cheated and left and spousal support was never put on the table (at least not before the t's were crossed and i's dotted.)

I disagree strongly that I or any loyal spouse shares equal responsibility for the choice to commit an act of infidelity.

After Dday it also helps explain a lot of the reasons the marriage wasn't functioning, for several months she was spending her effort elsewhere and for up to 2 years before that she simply had no faith in the relationship so was turned inward looking for solutions to her dissatisfaction but choose to exclude or ignore me. Both of us were dissatisfied leading up to her affair and our divorce and we attempted MC, I even carried thru with a lot of the needs she identified as needing from me, I struggled to identify the things I needed from her to make the marriage work. I acknowledge my share of the marital dysfunction but the deal was to love and cherish each other until death. It could be said we both didn't cherish each other but at what point during an affair does intent factor into it?

The real deal breaker for the relationship was not her affair, it was her choice to leave, the affair was simply a big slap in the face, the ultimate act of final disrespect for the husband she rejected. It would have been a deal breaker if she was planning to be a cake eater, and I think this is the biggest reason loyal spouses should not be on hook for spousal support because for many WAW's alimony is the perfect resource to enable their cake-eating. They expect to have their financial needs continue to be provided for while at the same time stop providing whatever needs they provided for in the marriage. 

(And i am separating spousal support from child support in that argument, the child's needs are independent from the marital status).


----------

