# Why



## Crillson (Sep 20, 2020)

I have read a great number of threads here and I must say that I am blown away by the reactions of the BS, "for the kids", "a broken family", "I put my foot down", "with a stern voice". I live in Sweden and if my wife would cheat on me she wouldnt get any money from me,in this country we are all to make our own living but here I´m reading about "men" thats crawling on muddrenched doormats with their b*alls hanging in the christmas three like a thropy, just 1 questning, way?


----------



## Lance Mannion (Nov 24, 2020)

Crillson said:


> I have read a great number of threads here and I must say that I am blown away by the reactions of the BS, "for the kids", "a broken family", "I put my foot down", "with a stern voice". I live in Sweden and if my wife would cheat on me she wouldnt get any money from me,in this country we are all to make our own living but here I´m reading about "men" thats crawling on muddrenched doormats with their b*alls hanging in the christmas three like a thropy, just 1 questning, way?


Close your eyes, imagine a man, now imagine that man is the worst man you can imagine, he's utter garbage. Now open your eyes and realize that man will be the step-father to your children and could well be spending more time with them that you.


----------



## Lance Mannion (Nov 24, 2020)

Crillson said:


> I live in Sweden and if my wife would cheat on me she wouldnt get any money from me,in this country we are all to make our own living but here


I don't understand why you think you're arguing from a superior position, there's no way you're going to convince a number of people that paid child care workers are going to do a better job raising children than the mother who stays at home with them.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

I think what the OP is saying is that betrayed husbands in Sweden are not as afraid as some he reads about here of divorcing their cheating wives - they do not get taken to the cleaners like betrayed husbands do in the USA or UK, since it is considered that wives are capable of earning their own living - I have personally seen this to be true in Sweden but then you have to remember that Sweden has an exceptional social system for supporting its people (so divorced wives/mothers are not as lacking financially) which is based on high taxes when you do work, AND Sweden is a country that is more than double the size of the UK but with a population of less than that of London (so jobs are a plenty).

OP, you know that the financial freedom Swedish citizens enjoy is simply not achievable in countries with much larger populations and so men/husbands are held financially responsible for their wives and children - so I think you know the answer to your question. You are simply trying to point out that in Sweden a betrayed husband (or wife) does not have to stay in a broken marriage simply "for the kids" or "because of finances". Well great! Whoopy doo for you! Wish we coud all have that financial freedom but we live in the social western world that we do, I guess.


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

Yes, as previously pointed out many posters here are from the US and UK where there are a range of reasons why men should rightly be worried about the outcomes of divorce. In the UK it is slowly getting better and, as there are more women now who are the higher earners and considered the secondary parents that they are finding out how systematically biased towards the person they consider the primary carer the family courts are when it comes to divorce with children. Of course the number of women in this position is still very small so it is still men predominantly finding themselves hugely financially penalised for not seeing their kids as often.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Crillson said:


> I have read a great number of threads here and I must say that I am blown away by the reactions of the BS, "for the kids", "a broken family", "I put my foot down", "with a stern voice". I live in Sweden and if my wife would cheat on me she wouldnt get any money from me,in this country we are all to make our own living but here I´m reading about "men" thats crawling on muddrenched doormats with their b*alls hanging in the christmas three like a thropy, just 1 questning, way?


Its not up to you whether you give money, its up to the courts.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

I read somewhere that custody in Sweden is almost always equally shared so child support payment doesn’t enter the equation anyway. 
And no fault divorce is the law.


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

Andy1001 said:


> I read somewhere that custody in Sweden is almost always equally shared so child support payment doesn’t enter the equation anyway.
> And no fault divorce is the law.


That's my understanding too. The UK system claims to start from that premise too, but the outcomes tell a very different story.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

AGoodFlogging said:


> That's my understanding too. The UK system claims to start from that premise too, but the outcomes tell a very different story.


I have a lot of family in the UK and some of the stories that I hear would give you nightmares, and without being sexist it’s almost always women who prevent their children’s father from seeing them.


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

Andy1001 said:


> I have a lot of family in the UK and some of the stories that I hear would give you nightmares, and without being sexist it’s almost always women who prevent their children’s father from seeing them.


The UK system makes it easy for women to isolate men from their children and also easy for men to effectively abandon their children. It is such an adversarial and financially focussed system that everything else is just secondary.


----------



## 347055 (Nov 7, 2020)

Andy1001 said:


> I read somewhere that custody in Sweden is almost always equally shared so child support payment doesn’t enter the equation anyway.
> And no fault divorce is the law.


Sweden likely doesn't have a huge cadre of attorneys anxiously waiting to sue someone for whatever. Here even the "winners" lose, justice is only for those with deep pockets. The OP is proud of his country, but he should be glad the whole world doesn't want to move there.

Having chosen poorly, my best friend has wanted to divorce his wife for 3/4 of their 25 year marriage, but has repeatedly been told he would lose 3/4 of all assets AFTER court costs ( he gets to pay for both attorneys ). His wife reminds him of this every time they have an argument, which is frequently. They have no children, I keep telling him life is too short to be miserable, no matter the financial cost.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Rus47 said:


> Sweden likely doesn't have a huge cadre of attorneys anxiously waiting to sue someone for whatever. Here even the "winners" lose, justice is only for those with deep pockets. * The OP is proud of his country, but he should be glad the whole world doesn't want to move there.*
> 
> Having chosen poorly, my best friend has wanted to divorce his wife for 3/4 of their 25 year marriage, but has repeatedly been told he would lose 3/4 of all assets AFTER court costs ( he gets to pay for both attorneys ). His wife reminds him of this every time they have an argument, which is frequently. They have no children, I keep telling him life is too short to be miserable, no matter the financial cost.


Hahahaha

We are the best! We are the best! 
Then later... F off we're full!


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

manfromlamancha said:


> so men/husbands are held financially responsible for their wives and children -
> 
> they do not get taken to the cleaners like betrayed husbands do in the USA or UK


Show me one US state where the law specifically mentions the _man _must be held financially responsible for their former spouse and children. Just one. I'll wait.

Hint: Such a law doesn't exist. The law is gender neutral.

The reality is that no man or woman ever gets "taken to the cleaners" in a divorce without first making a series of decisions that set them up to be financially responsible in such a scenario. Men who _decide_ to marry partners who make less or who _decide_ to have a SAHW/SAHM are at fault for their financial obligation should the marriage end simply because they _chose_ to be the only or primary breadwinner. 

It's not like divorce laws are hidden and shrouded in mystery. It's well known, and has been for decades, that the lower earner will likely be entitled to support if/when the marriage ends.

Avoiding financial liability for a former spouse is actually very simple. 

* Don't marry someone who makes far less. 

* Don't marry or stay married to someone who wants to be a SAHM/SAHW. 

* Don't "stay for the kids" because spousal support is largely determined by length of marriage. In my state, or example, 19 years and 1 day married qualifies the lower earner for lifetime alimony. Staying for the kids is not a smart move if it will cost you years/decades of spousal support. It makes more sense to pay child support for a few years or so than to pay spousal support for decades.

And, regardless of gender, if you (the general you) do "stay for the kids", make more than your spouse, and allow your spouse to be largely financially dependent on you then you have to understand that you've made choices that set you up for financial obligations later and that is not the fault of the law, or the court, or your ex. It's your fault. You made the decisions that lead to being obligated to your spouse. You could have selected a mate that made comparable income. You could have ended the marriage if they refused to work or work to their potential. You decided to stay married long enough to be legally obligated. That's all on you.

As an aside, lest you all think I'm being harsh to the higher earners or those who want a traditional family complete with SAHM, I'm not.

I frequently tell SAH to get an education/job training certificate and to at least try to work part time or volunteer to keep their skills current and to show some experience outside the home just in case. Higher earners may die, leave, suffer debilitating illness, or be injured and become unable to work. Average child support and/or alimony isn't enough to cover the bills and neither is Social Security or Social Security Disability. If anything should go wrong, the lower earner and any minor children could be easily thrown into poverty. Such a situation could be avoided by taking a few precautions in order to remain gainfully employable.

I am a SAHM/SAHW. I have stayed at home for 20 years minus a few stints in retail work for 6 months or so here and there. I am well aware that I have gambled on the marriage surviving and my spouse being able to support us. My spouse is well aware that, should the marriage fail, he'll be paying alimony until one of us dies or I remarry. We've chosen to take these risks. Neither or us has any room to complain should our roll of the dice show snake eyes.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

RandomDude said:


> Hahahaha
> 
> We are the best! We are the best!
> Then later... F off we're full!


Australia........Where men are men and sheep travel in pairs.


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Andy1001 said:


> Australia........Where men are men and sheep travel in pairs.


Lol evidently it's not just us with that anti-immigration attitude, but yeah we did invent that slogan


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

RandomDude said:


> Lol evidently it's not just us with that anti-immigration attitude, but yeah we did invent that slogan


I’ve been in Australia a and going through immigration I was asked did I have a criminal record. I said I didn’t think it was still compulsory. 😆


----------



## RandomDude (Dec 18, 2010)

Andy1001 said:


> I’ve been in Australia a and going through immigration I was asked did I have a criminal record. I said I didn’t think it was still compulsory. 😆


Hahahahhahahaa ROFL!


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

MJJEAN said:


> Show me one US state where the law specifically mentions the _man _must be held financially responsible for their former spouse and children. Just one. I'll wait.
> 
> Hint: Such a law doesn't exist. The law is gender neutral.
> 
> ...


I'm not in the US but a similar argument could be made about the drafting of legislation in the UK. I'm sure it is probably as well established in US law as it is in UK law that the drafting of legislation in gender neutral terms is not the defining factor in whether the legislation is discriminatory or unfair, it is in how it is applied.

The reality of divorce law and settlements appears to be clouded by age old assumptions that:

1) the person earning the most money is by default the secondary parent.
2) stay at home spouses should be enabled to remain unemployed (seems to be more common in the US, but there is a phrase "kept in the style to which they are accustomed" which gets trotted out in the UK).
3) That children are best off with their mother unless there is very strong evidence otherwise.
4) That the working parent, by dint of them needing to work to support the family, is only entitled to limited visitation with the children (Every other weekend and a midweek overnight seems to be a more common starting point in the UK than the oft quoted 50/50 start point claimed).


Unlimited terms for alimony are ultimately discriminatory predominantly against men. Luckily in the UK these are very rare if seen at all. Judges in my country feel that imposition of such orders where one person is compelled to maintain someone else in being economically inactive in effective perpetuity is unreasonable.

The end of a marriage is a major change and should me a rebalancing of how parents need to look after their children. It should not be for the courts to assume and enforce that the higher earner (often the father) should financially maintain the roles that existed in the marriage whilst also only having limited visitation with his children. 

Your position as a SAHM is part of your marriage, it should not be enabled to be maintained when the marriage breaks down. Courts, should imho, be working towards as clean a break as possible. The UK does at least seem to be further down that track that the US but still has a way to go.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

manfromlamancha said:


> I think what the OP is saying is that betrayed husbands in Sweden are not as afraid as some he reads about here of divorcing their cheating wives - they do not get taken to the cleaners like betrayed husbands do in the USA or UK, since it is considered that wives are capable of earning their own living - I have personally seen this to be true in Sweden but then you have to remember that Sweden has an exceptional social system for supporting its people (so divorced wives/mothers are not as lacking financially) which is based on high taxes when you do work, AND Sweden is a country that is more than double the size of the UK but with a population of less than that of London (so jobs are a plenty).
> 
> OP, you know that the financial freedom Swedish citizens enjoy is simply not achievable in countries with much larger populations and so men/husbands are held financially responsible for their wives and children - so I think you know the answer to your question. You are simply trying to point out that in Sweden a betrayed husband (or wife) does not have to stay in a broken marriage simply "for the kids" or "because of finances". Well great! Whoopy doo for you! Wish we coud all have that financial freedom but we live in the social western world that we do, I guess.


I think Sweden's cradle to grave welfare system influences these sentiments as well. As an adult and a parent, if you did not have to save for healthcare, education, retirement, or even need a car because the public transport is adequate, then there is no need to have a "nest egg" for these necessities. This is what encouraged a lot of Scandinavians to reject marriage and just start a family anyway. IF the couple were to break up, the average Swede wouldn't have much in assets anyway. A rented home, a couch?


----------



## LisaDiane (Jul 22, 2019)

Crillson said:


> I have read a great number of threads here and I must say that I am blown away by the reactions of the BS, "for the kids", "a broken family", "I put my foot down", "with a stern voice". I live in Sweden and if my wife would cheat on me she wouldnt get any money from me,in this country we are all to make our own living but here I´m reading about "men" thats crawling on muddrenched doormats with their b*alls hanging in the christmas three like a thropy, just 1 questning, way?


Also, remember that you are on a site that most happily coupled people wouldn't find or post on, so there are going to be more men like you describe on here than there are actually out living their lives and being satisfied and happy in their marriages.


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

MJJEAN said:


> Show me one US state where the law specifically mentions the _man _must be held financially responsible for their former spouse and children. Just one. I'll wait.
> 
> Hint: Such a law doesn't exist. The law is gender neutral.
> 
> ...


I can't like this post enough! Men somehow forget the _series_ of decisions they made that have an impact on an eventual divorce. It's easier to blame the courts or "women".


----------



## Livvie (Jan 20, 2014)

Lance Mannion said:


> Close your eyes, imagine a man, now imagine that man is the worst man you can imagine, he's utter garbage. Now open your eyes and realize that man will be the step-father to your children and could well be spending more time with them that you.


Easy solution: pick a high quality woman who in the event of a divorce isn't going to expose her kids to "the worst man you can imagine, utter garbage".

Who the heck marries someone who would be in a relationship with the worst man possible and utter garbage?


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

Livvie said:


> I can't like this post enough! Men somehow forget the _series_ of decisions they made that have an impact on an eventual divorce. It's easier to blame the courts or "women".


Surely these are decisions made together as a couple as part of the marriage? At the end of that marriage then surely these things need to be re-evaluated? Many countries have or are coming round to the idea that past economic inactivity is no excuse for not getting out there and getting a job post-divorce. It appears that there are US states that are still well behind on that.


----------



## TJW (Mar 20, 2012)

Lance Mannion said:


> Close your eyes, imagine a man, now imagine that man is the worst man you can imagine, he's utter garbage. Now open your eyes and realize that man will be the step-father to your children and could well be spending more time with them that you.


Now close your eyes again, and imagine that it will not be simply "that" man, but 13 other similar men over the next year or two.
Now keep your eyes closed, and imagine that one of these garbage-holes comes for his booty-call drunk, and hits one of your boys.
Now open your eyes, and recognize that your choice is between remaining in the house with the slvt, or allowing your boys to endure this.

I can guarantee, after this awakening, that you, nor any other MAN, has any thought about mud-drenched doormats, or providing testicular trophies. You will allow others to think what they will, but when you look in the mirror years later, you will fully understand that neither of your boys had this kind of a life, and it was not cowardice on your part which provided their safety.


----------



## 347055 (Nov 7, 2020)

Livvie said:


> Easy solution: pick a high quality woman who in the event of a divorce isn't going to expose her kids to "the worst man you can imagine, utter garbage".
> 
> *Who the heck marries someone who would be in a relationship with the worst man possible and utter garbage?*


Certainly sometimes people make poor choices in mates. But...

People change. For any number of reasons. A lot of threads in these forums describe a marriage where the wife or husband was wonderful at the beginning,"high quality" (whatever that means), yet years later morphs into an unrecognizable person, the faithful partner begins banging everything with pants (or skirts as case may be). Or becomes a drug addict, or alcoholic, or mentally ill, or...

Also, sometimes when a person is dating they keep the monster they really are chained up at home in the closet. To be released once the "honeymoon" is over. 

Surely you have friends and/or relatives who have personally dealt with either or both of these situations.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Crillson said:


> I have read a great number of threads here and I must say that I am blown away by the reactions of the BS, "for the kids", "a broken family", "I put my foot down", "with a stern voice". I live in Sweden and if my wife would cheat on me she wouldnt get any money from me,in this country we are all to make our own living but here I´m reading about "men" thats crawling on muddrenched doormats with their b*alls hanging in the christmas three like a thropy, just 1 questning, way?


I hope one day we are the same here. I am all for splitting the cost of a offspring while they are growing up kid but it's wrong to expect a healthy adult to be supported by another one in today's day and age. 

Here is the thing, more women are graduating college then men in this country right now so it a safe assumption they will be making more money. When they have to pay alimony the laws will change. Alimony will be a thing of the past in 10 years it's an antiqued concept. Your country is just ahead of us in that way.

For as to why so many men are willing to put up with it today. I think there are a few things. First of all I have to be honest I fell like the lack of father's involvement with their kids for generations have stunted men's growth. Also society has abandon teaching men emotional maturity for generations instead pushing the troupe that men are incapable of being emotionally intelligent and are horny teenagers, or stoic robots. In doing so we have not provided a lot of men with the tools to deal with such emotional painful experiences. 

Also you need to understand that boards like this are a very weighted sample size. Most people do exactly what you say and they don't post on message boards, the divorce and move on. Recovering in a year or two.


----------



## sokillme (Jun 10, 2016)

Lance Mannion said:


> Close your eyes, imagine a man, now imagine that man is the worst man you can imagine, he's utter garbage. Now open your eyes and realize that man will be the step-father to your children and could well be spending more time with them that you.


As someone who had that experience as a kid or close to it. I would advise my parents to divorce again if I could talk to them. One thing really didn't have to do with the other in my mind.


----------



## Lance Mannion (Nov 24, 2020)

Livvie said:


> Easy solution: pick a high quality woman who in the event of a divorce isn't going to expose her kids to "the worst man you can imagine, utter garbage".
> 
> Who the heck marries someone who would be in a relationship with the worst man possible and utter garbage?


If you read through these archives, a whole heck of a lot of people.

We can expand that garbage category by including "the man/woman who had an affair with my spouse and thus blew up my family. and is now taking my place."


----------



## Lance Mannion (Nov 24, 2020)

AGoodFlogging said:


> Surely these are decisions made together as a couple as part of the marriage? At the end of that marriage then surely these things need to be re-evaluated? Many countries have or are coming round to the idea that past economic inactivity is no excuse for not getting out there and getting a job post-divorce. It appears that there are US states that are still well behind on that.


Part of our prenup deals with this point. My being the sole earner and allowing my wife to be a SAHM is a gift I make to my wife based on my love for her and because I deem her to be better suited to raise our children instead of daycare workers, this is a decision we arrived at together, each making a sacrifice for the benefit of the family, she sacrifices income/experience in her career and I sacrifice time with the children and her foregone income, however, if the marriage breaks down then I CAN reevaluate the character of my wife and my willingness to be generous to her CAN also be reassessed and the children will be no worse off than millions of other children who are sent to daycare.

This notion of "kept in the lifestyle to which they have grown accustomed" is something I was disgusted with as a young man and vowed I'd never subject myself to this backwards doctrine, not until a court somewhere ordered an ex-wife to go and give morning blowjobs to her ex-husband because that too was something to which he had grown accustomed to in the marriage.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

AGoodFlogging said:


> that the drafting of legislation in gender neutral terms is not the defining factor in whether the legislation is discriminatory or unfair, it is in how it is applied.


Actually, that's exactly what it means. I know many women who are non-custodial parents or who were higher earners and now pay their ex child support even though they have 50/50 custody. The law, as applied, seems to favor men because, well, men tend to be the higher or sole earners in their marriages, by choice, mind you.



AGoodFlogging said:


> The reality of divorce law and settlements appears to be clouded by age old assumptions that:
> 
> 1) the person earning the most money is by default the secondary parent.
> 2) stay at home spouses should be enabled to remain unemployed (seems to be more common in the US, but there is a phrase "kept in the style to which they are accustomed" which gets trotted out in the UK).
> ...


1) Generally, the parent who earns more works more and is less available to spend time caring for the children. 

2) SAH that end up divorced generally do NOT get to remain unemployed. Child support and alimony are supplemental. 

The average child support in the US is $400 per month. 

Alimony is harder to average, but is generally around 30-40% of the higher earner's income minus 50% of the lower earner's income. The court will impute income for an unemployed spouse. The imputed income will be based on the average that spouse could be expected to earn with their degree, certifications, and/or prior work experience. If the lower earner has none of those, the court will impute the state's minimum wage as the lower/non earner is expected to obtain employment. 



AGoodFlogging said:


> The end of a marriage is a major change and should me a rebalancing of how parents need to look after their children. It should not be for the courts to assume and enforce that the higher earner (often the father) should financially maintain the roles that existed in the marriage whilst also only having limited visitation with his children.


The end of a marriage does mean the rebalancing of how parents look after their children and it is for the courts to decide custody. If the higher earner is working so many hours they aren't able to spend any meaningful time with the child(ren) then it makes logical sense for the child(ren) to be with the parent who can be present. 

And, again, this is a choice of the higher earner. The higher earner chose to be the higher earner. They chose the imbalance. Rather than be in an equal partnership that would mean equal parenting time and financial responsibility after divorce they chose to be in an unequal partnership that would translate to additional responsibility in event of divorce.



AGoodFlogging said:


> Your position as a SAHM is part of your marriage, it should not be enabled to be maintained when the marriage breaks down. Courts, should imho, be working towards as clean a break as possible. The UK does at least seem to be further down that track that the US but still has a way to go.


In the event of a divorce my position as SAH would have to change. Alimony wouldn't be near enough to cover the bills. But it would compensate me for the years of job experience and earning potential I sacrificed to keep DH and the household functional.



AGoodFlogging said:


> Many countries have or are coming round to the idea that past economic inactivity is no excuse for not getting out there and getting a job post-divorce. It appears that there are US states that are still well behind on that.


It would appear so, but that is not the case. We don't have the social safety net and services available elsewhere and only the few who married and divorced the wealthy could possibly afford to remain jobless post divorce.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> I read somewhere that custody in Sweden is almost always equally shared so child support payment doesn’t enter the equation anyway.
> And no fault divorce is the law.


Its not just custody though, there may be assets such as a house, savings, businesses, investments etc
To go into a divorce saying 'he/she isnt getting anything out of me' is hardly a fair or decent thing to do. I believe that challenging and difficult things like a divorce will bring out what is inside a person's character. When I see people acting terribly and trying to cheat and lie and screw over a spouse financially and otherwise its easy to see what they are really like. I have seen people act fairly, decently and with integrity in a divorce even if their spouse wasnt, and I could see what they were really like inside.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Lance Mannion said:


> Part of our prenup deals with this point. My being the sole earner and allowing my wife to be a SAHM is a gift I make to my wife based on my love for her and because I deem her to be better suited to raise our children instead of daycare workers, this is a decision we arrived at together, each making a sacrifice for the benefit of the family, she sacrifices income/experience in her career and I sacrifice time with the children and her foregone income, however, if the marriage breaks down then I CAN reevaluate the character of my wife and my willingness to be generous to her CAN also be reassessed and the children will be no worse off than millions of other children who are sent to daycare.
> 
> This notion of "kept in the lifestyle to which they have grown accustomed" is something I was disgusted with as a young man and vowed I'd never subject myself to this backwards doctrine, not until a court somewhere ordered an ex-wife to go and give morning blowjobs to her ex-husband because that too was something to which he had grown accustomed to in the marriage.


Unless you are very rich then there will obviously be a drop in income and lifestyle after a divorce. 
I dont agree with prenups and I would never have one nor marriy a man who wanted one.


----------



## Lance Mannion (Nov 24, 2020)

Diana7 said:


> Unless you are very rich then there will obviously be a drop in income and lifestyle after a divorce.
> I dont agree with prenups and I would never have one nor marriy a man who wanted one.


I don't agree with the body of legal precedent established under marital and family law. Impasse. No way was I going to stick my neck into a noose.


----------



## PieceOfSky (Apr 7, 2013)

Occupying space in my kids’ lives so that my wife’s EA partner and former lover could not even get close, was a definite consideration .

He was an alcoholic, stole his step daughter’s panties according to his STBX, and went to jail for hitting his then-wife.

I like to think she affaired down, and I had no reason to expect this would happen 10 or 15 years earlier when we seemed to be in love and planning a happy life together.

But, if someone wants to judge me for it on the internet, I suspect that tells us more about them than it does me.

Logically, I don’t think the long-standing existence of any law has much to tell us about its fairness. Telling people that they “should have” made different choices decades ago doesn’t erase the limited choices they face now.

I consider myself fortunate at this time. Turns out the laws in my state seem pretty fair, and my wife now seems fairly self-sufficient and willing to be fair.

One thing TAM has shown me, the laws vary greatly from locale to locale. I have no clue about how they are applied to one sex vs another. But, clearly the burden on the one wanting to end a marriage is much greater in some places than another, and it seems to wreak havoc on peoples’ lives, good peoples’ lives.

I have sympathy for those whose financial, legal, and especially parenthood situations present overriding concerns. It’s a shame when the cost is so high to set oneself free to find relief and have a chance for happiness, that miserable situations persist.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Rus47 said:


> Sweden likely doesn't have a huge cadre of attorneys anxiously waiting to sue someone for whatever. Here even the "winners" lose, justice is only for those with deep pockets. The OP is proud of his country, but he should be glad the whole world doesn't want to move there.
> 
> Having chosen poorly, my best friend has wanted to divorce his wife for 3/4 of their 25 year marriage, but has repeatedly been told he would lose 3/4 of all assets AFTER court costs ( he gets to pay for both attorneys ). His wife reminds him of this every time they have an argument, which is frequently. They have no children, I keep telling him life is too short to be miserable, no matter the financial cost.


Surely it depends on what the assets are worth. If he can still live a good lifestyle then what is the problem? If he has ended the marriage 15-20 years ago then presumably she wouldnt have got nearly so much so why didnt he do it then if he was so unhappy?.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Lance Mannion said:


> I don't agree with the body of legal precedent established under marital and family law. Impasse. No way was I going to stick my neck into a noose.


I didnt stick my head in a noose either.


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

MJJEAN said:


> Actually, that's exactly what it means. I know many women who are non-custodial parents or who were higher earners and now pay their ex child support even though they have 50/50 custody. The law, as applied, seems to favor men because, well, men tend to be the higher or sole earners in their marriages, by choice, mind you.


It really isn't what it means, at least in my country. You can write any legislation using gender neutral terms, that doesn't mean it is not discriminatory. They only way that can be established is by testing in the courts and that is only really a reflection of societal norms at the time.

Again, in my country a 50/50 childcare arrangement would result in no child support being due from either parent. It is supposed that the more wealthy parent is free to use their additional wealth to spend on their children as they see fit in such circumstances.

Again, the choice to have a single earner in a family is a choice by a married couple not by either spouse on their own as you seem to insinuate.



> 1) Generally, the parent who earns more works more and is less available to spend time caring for the children.


Should be both established on a case by case basis and also explore what is possible to get towards equitable childcare arrangements. I have a number of friends who essentially were railroaded by the courts to accept unequal custody as it was just assumed that they were both less available and had no flexibility within their employment despite them stating otherwise.



> 2) SAH that end up divorced generally do NOT get to remain unemployed. Child support and alimony are supplemental.
> 
> The average child support in the US is $400 per month.
> 
> Alimony is harder to average, but is generally around 30-40% of the higher earner's income minus 50% of the lower earner's income. The court will impute income for an unemployed spouse. The imputed income will be based on the average that spouse could be expected to earn with their degree, certifications, and/or prior work experience. If the lower earner has none of those, the court will impute the state's minimum wage as the lower/non earner is expected to obtain employment.


In many cases that will make up the average it would not have been economically viable for either spouse to be full-time at home whilst married so they have to be ignored here. We are of course talking about people with the means to support a family off one wage. There are many examples of women who have been enabled to not work or work much less due to permanent alimony payments that extend far beyond when children have left home. Limited alimony to allow the raising of young children (where no other childcare is possible or affordable) and the development of skills to gain employment is the only reasonable way forward. Having women who claim 30-40% of a man's post divorce earnings effectively in perpetuity and have significant assets from a divorce can never be a fair and balanced settlement. The courts in my country do recognise this.



> The end of a marriage does mean the rebalancing of how parents look after their children and it is for the courts to decide custody. If the higher earner is working so many hours they aren't able to spend any meaningful time with the child(ren) then it makes logical sense for the child(ren) to be with the parent who can be present.


It certainly isn't for the courts to decide in my country except if the parents are unable to agree. The problem is that all a mother has to do is refuse to agree and then the courts will make assumptions as you perhaps have done that a higher earner is not able to spend "meaningful time" with their children so don't need to see them as much.



> And, again, this is a choice of the higher earner. The higher earner chose to be the higher earner. They chose the imbalance. Rather than be in an equal partnership that would mean equal parenting time and financial responsibility after divorce they chose to be in an unequal partnership that would translate to additional responsibility in event of divorce.


Again, that is a choice made as a couple based on being married. No-one stands up in the wedding and makes you sign a disclaimer to say that you understand how the divorce laws will affect your future income. Once the marriage contract has ended, having a permanent claim of future income is totally unreasonable. That is why many jurisdictions do not award it except in very exceptional circumstances.



> In the event of a divorce my position as SAH would have to change. Alimony wouldn't be near enough to cover the bills. But it would compensate me for the years of job experience and earning potential I sacrificed to keep DH and the household functional.


I take great issue with the word "sacrifice" here as either it must apply both ways or none. It belies the underlying biases of society that these terms are used. Did your spouse force you, against your will, to be a SAHP?

"The higher earner has made a choice to be the higher earner and must accept the risks."

"The lower earner/SAHP has made sacrifices to raise children and so must be give redress through financial support indefinitely."

Sorry that doesn't wash with me. The couple have both made a choice or they have both made sacrifices.

I.e. the higher earner has sacrificed their time with the children to provide a higher standard of living for the family. Or the SAHP has made the choice to stop work completely and has to accept the risk that their future ability to earn money is compromised.

In our modern Western society there is absolutely no reason why a woman has to stop working entirely when she gets married and has children.

Divorce laws are slow to adapt to the fact that we are not in the 1950s anymore. It makes me wonder why, when we are in a world where we have seen huge social change in other areas. As others have said, I suspect it is due to there not being a critical mass of women who have been disadvantaged by the current situation for there to be a reason to change. Male campaigners against divorce injustice in my country are pilloried as reactionary misogynists and roundly ignored.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

Andy1001 said:


> Australia........Where men are men and sheep travel in pairs.


You must be English.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

manfromlamancha said:


> I think what the OP is saying is that betrayed husbands in Sweden are not as afraid as some he reads about here of divorcing their cheating wives - they do not get taken to the cleaners like betrayed husbands do in the USA or UK, since it is considered that wives are capable of earning their own living - I have personally seen this to be true in Sweden but then you have to remember that Sweden has an exceptional social system for supporting its people (so divorced wives/mothers are not as lacking financially) which is based on high taxes when you do work, AND Sweden is a country that is more than double the size of the UK but with a population of less than that of London (so jobs are a plenty).
> 
> OP, you know that the financial freedom Swedish citizens enjoy is simply not achievable in countries with much larger populations and so men/husbands are held financially responsible for their wives and children - so I think you know the answer to your question. You are simply trying to point out that in Sweden a betrayed husband (or wife) does not have to stay in a broken marriage simply "for the kids" or "because of finances". Well great! Whoopy doo for you! Wish we coud all have that financial freedom but we live in the social western world that we do, I guess.


That is true. Certainly, relationship counselling is Scandinavia assumes both parties have equal responsibility in the relationship. The big contrast is the UK where the man is held responsible (as *AGoodFlogging *outlines).


----------



## Lance Mannion (Nov 24, 2020)

AGoodFlogging said:


> Divorce laws are slow to adapt to the fact that we are not in the 1950s anymore. *It makes me wonder why*, when we are in a world where we have seen huge social change in other areas. As others have said, I suspect it is due to there not being a critical mass of women who have been disadvantaged by the current situation for there to be a reason to change. Male campaigners against divorce injustice in my country are pilloried as reactionary misogynists and roundly ignored.


Look at social revolutions. There are many existing social customs, the liberal project is focused on upending and destroying those social customs, by any means necessary, and replacing them with "something else." The efforts continue, on multiple fronts, until the targeted social custom is overturned.

Now here's what I think is the important point. Can you think of any liberal social revolution which has been subjected to the same dynamic, meaning that the now in place liberal-inspired social custom is overturned by any means necessary? I can't. The ratchet works in only one direction.

So, the same standard applies to women's interests - anything which benefits women at the expense of men is ever going to be overturned. This is the nature of women.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

NextTimeAround said:


> You must be English.


I have a Scottish Mother, an Irish father, I was born in NY and I (temporarily) live in Ireland.
Not an English bone in my body thank God.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

> So, the same standard applies to women's interests - nothing which benefits women at the expense of men is ever going to be overturned.


Sorry, but capitalism is a zero sum good.


----------



## Lance Mannion (Nov 24, 2020)

NextTimeAround said:


> Sorry, but capitalism is a zero sum good.


I have no idea what you mean, this is too cryptic for me to decipher.

I'll take a stab though. Capitalism, as it pertains to wealth creation, is by definition, not a zero sum activity. Here's a model.

You know how to sew, I know how to build a chair. If I needed to sew myself a pair of pants it would take me 6 hours but you could do it in 2 hours. If you needed to build yourself a chair it would take you 6 hours but I could do it in 2 hours. We trade our services, we take those 6 hours and you make 3 pairs of pants and I make 3 chairs. I give you one chair and you give me one pair of pants. You are left with 2 extra pair of pants and I'm left with 2 extra chairs. We can trade those in the future. We've created wealth from our trade and we're both richer for engaging in trade than if we refrained from trading and did the work ourselves.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> I have a Scottish Mother, an Irish father, I was born in NY and I (temporarily) live in Ireland.
> Not an English bone in my body thank God.


Why thank God? I love England. Mind you most of us are a mixture of all sorts of natonalities. If you get a DNA test done it can be pretty illuminating.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Mr The Other said:


> That is true. Certainly, relationship counselling is Scandinavia assumes both parties have equal responsibility in the relationship. The big contrast is the UK where the man is held responsible (as *AGoodFlogging *outlines).


No the man isnt held responsible anymore than the woman is.


----------



## Lance Mannion (Nov 24, 2020)

Diana7 said:


> Why thank God? I love England. Mind you most of us are a mixture of all sorts of natonalities. If you get a DNA test done it can be pretty illuminating.


Until recently, most of our ancestors didn't venture more than 100 miles from their place of birth, so MOST of the people in the UK have long family histories and not all that much admixture. London is not the norm.


----------



## Andy1001 (Jun 29, 2016)

Diana7 said:


> Why thank God? I love England. Mind you most of us are a mixture of all sorts of natonalities. If you get a DNA test done it can be pretty illuminating.


It was a joke Diana, don’t take everything so seriously.
I own a property in Knightsbridge and my only sibling lives less than a mile away from me.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Lance Mannion said:


> Until recently, most of our ancestors didn't venture more than 100 miles from their place of birth, so MOST of the people in the UK have long family histories and not all that much admixture. London is not the norm.


British people are a mixture of all sorts of countries from way back in our history. It was pretty weird that my DNA showed that I was actually less British than my Australian husband. II have ancestors from Italy, Spain, Ireland and even Scandanavia.


----------



## Diana7 (Apr 19, 2016)

Andy1001 said:


> It was a joke Diana, don’t take everything so seriously.
> I own a property in Knightsbridge and my only sibling lives less than a mile away from me.


Oh. It didnt seem like one, but I will take your word for it.


----------



## CatholicDad (Oct 30, 2017)

If we all did things like Sweden wouldn’t we all be speaking in German right now?


----------



## Lance Mannion (Nov 24, 2020)

CatholicDad said:


> If we all did things like Sweden wouldn’t we all be speaking in German right now?


Or Arabic.


----------



## NextTimeAround (Dec 15, 2011)

CatholicDad said:


> If we all did things like Sweden wouldn’t we all be speaking in German right now?


or English.


----------



## Mr The Other (Feb 1, 2014)

Diana7 said:


> No the man isnt held responsible anymore than the woman is.


These things change over nations and generations.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

MJJEAN said:


> Show me one US state where the law specifically mentions the _man _must be held financially responsible for their former spouse and children. Just one. I'll wait.
> 
> Hint: Such a law doesn't exist. The law is gender neutral.
> 
> ...


Let’s say a woman in your situation gets bored or whatever reason and cheats, decides to divorce and live with the AP from now on, accepting lifetime alimony and never marrying so as to reap that benefit.

I agree wholeheartedly with your post. Your husband is taking a huge gamble based on statistics, and any man that marries and has a stay at home wife is naive and setting himself up for an almost certain train wreck.

Your post should be standard reading for all unmarried young men.
There’s a lot of men who have stepped into the trap not knowing the dangers.
Whatever the supposed gender neutrality of the law, real life is a lot different.


----------



## oldshirt (Apr 1, 2017)

Diana7 said:


> To go into a divorce saying 'he/she isnt getting anything out of me' is hardly a fair or decent thing to do. I believe that challenging and difficult things like a divorce will bring out what is inside a person's character. When I see people acting terribly and trying to cheat and lie and screw over a spouse financially and otherwise its easy to see what they are really like.


At the risk of sounding completely judgmental and finger-pointing, I think there is some reality in this.

If someone is essentially a snake in the grass and is a lier and a cheat and completely self-centered and has no regard for other people’s wants and needs, they are going to be a crappy partner in the first place and at higher risk of divorce and they will likely be a selfish, underhanded, lying cheat in a divorce as well. 

Sucky people suck. They will suck and be a bad partner in marriage. And they will be sucky and nasty in a divorce as well. 

When these people marry lying, cheating, drinking, hostile, drama-generating misfits and then moan and groan when they lie and cheat and make drama in the marriage and then whine when they aren’t being cooperative and amicable in divorce is a head scratcher to me. 

Why did they think this coke-snorting, carousel riding drama queen stripper would make a good wife and mother in the first place and then act all shocked and bewildered when she’s a snake in the grass in the divorce. 

And these gals that marry these serial cheating, drinking, wife-beating n’er do wells and can’t understand why they haven’t transformed into kind, generous and cooperative people in the divorce boggles my mind.


----------



## Thumos (Jul 21, 2020)

Crillson said:


> have read a great number of threads here and I must say that I am blown away by the reactions of the BS, "for the kids", "a broken family", "I put my foot down", "with a stern voice". I live in Sweden and if my wife would cheat on me she wouldnt get any money from me,in this country we are all to make our own living but here I´m reading about "men" thats crawling on muddrenched doormats with their b*alls hanging in the christmas three like a thropy, just 1 questning, way?


For one thing, maybe divorce laws are more equitable in Sweden allowing men more freedom after being betrayed. In America most divorce law heavily favors women with often punitive child support and alimony payments, even if women are unfaithful. Indeed even if DNA test result reveal the children aren’t even theirs. So most American men have to think through the potential crushing financial burden. Marriage is not a good deal for most American men but this is only recently becoming more widespread knowledge.


----------



## Thumos (Jul 21, 2020)

MJJEAN said:


> I am a SAHM/SAHW. I have stayed at home for 20 years minus a few stints in retail work for 6 months or so here and there. I am well aware that I have gambled on the marriage surviving and my spouse being able to support us. My spouse is well aware that, should the marriage fail, he'll be paying alimony until one of us dies or I remarry.


It seems what you’re probably telling us is that marriage is a high risk, low return gamble for most men, because more women than men would still prefer to be a SAHM and will press for commitment to arrange that setup. If a SAHM then betrays her loyal husband after years of commitment, he has little recourse to avoid financial penalties to the unfaithful wife or stay and eat the feces sandwich. Thus female infidelity would seem to favor most women and disadvantage most men In almost every single way. I would agree. It’s probably not a good deal for most men most of the time.


----------



## MJJEAN (Jun 26, 2015)

Hey, guys! I normally try to reply in a timely manner, but my computer had a massive meltdown I spent some serious time fixing, so, yeah.



RandomDude said:


> In a fault divorce country/state, if the personal relationship has been severed and both parties acknowledge that and marriage remains only on paper, that would still be considered adultery sadly.


In case you haven't checked in a while, all states are no-fault, a few states still allow at-fault filings, and some of the few states that do allow at-fault filing do NOT allow Adultery to be listed as the fault. Things have changed and I think it's for the better. Between people who agree to have open marriages or grant a hall pass here or there and people who have to wait out long separations before they can file I think this is a good thing.



Evinrude58 said:


> Let’s say a woman in your situation gets bored or whatever reason and cheats, decides to divorce and live with the AP from now on, accepting lifetime alimony and never marrying so as to reap that benefit.
> 
> I agree wholeheartedly with your post. Your husband is taking a huge gamble based on statistics, and any man that marries and has a stay at home wife is naive and setting himself up for an almost certain train wreck.
> 
> ...


DH isn't naïve. Remember, we met and started dating when I was married to my ex. 

DH and I have had for 21 years (our anniversary was earlier this month ) what many would consider an extremely enmeshed and co-dependent relationship. We're well aware of that fact and like it that way. It works for us.

It's a long story, but he was the youngest of 5 by many years, his parents were middle aged when he was born and were semi-retired from the family business taking many trips per year to the Florida vacation homes, to business related conventions and shows, and to whichever country club golf course his dad favored at the time. He was never really disciplined, he was extremely sheltered, and everybody thought somebody else taught him XYZ. We both think he's on the spectrum and his family mental health history would support this theory. 

He's the most intelligent and nimble minded person I have ever met and that's saying something. But he lacked practical knowledge, he lacked any real self discipline, he was charming and funny yet socially awkward, he went to and left various universities, hopped jobs when he wasn't working for the family business or doing an occasional stint as an unemployed rich kidault, and had no direction or reason to do anything with himself.

Then he met me.

I won't go into the details, it would take too long, but he's now a man with a 20 year career, a home he owns free and clear, 2 cars owned free and clear, and literally all he does is wake up, shower, dress himself, and go to his job. I handle literally _everything else_ and have for the entirety of our relationship. This is a man who wakes up to breakfast and liquid caffeine in bed every day before work. This is a man who doesn't buy his own clothes or necessities or even gamer toys and associated hardware. He just tells me what he wants and I handle it. He doesn't know when the bills are due because I pay them. On and on. He will be the first to acknowledge he'd literally be incapable without me acting as an extremely overachieving personal assistant. So, he's ok with me getting a continuing cut, as they say, should we divorce.

The law is gender neutral and real life is what we make of it based on our choices. If we marry equal partners we divorce clean. If we marry unequal partners we maintain some financial responsibility after a long term marriage. 



Thumos said:


> In America most divorce law heavily favors women with often punitive child support and alimony payments, even if women are unfaithful.
> Marriage is not a good deal for most American men but this is only recently becoming more widespread knowledge.


No. In America divorce law favors the lower earner. Women are increasingly paying alimony and child support to lower earning/SAH ex spouses. The law is gender neutral.



Thumos said:


> It seems what you’re probably telling us is that marriage is a high risk, low return gamble for most men


No. I'm saying that being the main breadwinner in a marriage with a low earning/SAH spouse is a gamble. To avoid taking financial loss if the marriage doesn't survive men _and_ women should try to marry as equally as possible. If they choose not to do that then they need to accept their future financial liability should the marriage fail.


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

> The law is gender neutral and real life is what we make of it based on our choices. If we marry equal partners we divorce clean. If we marry unequal partners we maintain some financial responsibility after a long term marriage.


The legislation as drafted maybe, but as I've pointed out before the application isn't. Even alimony reform has not really changed that. Only a small percentage of men receive alimony (3% of total claimants in the US from figures I've seen) despite there being an estimated 40% of marriages when the woman is the higher earner. I can't find figures for the UK but as there are recent legal blogs still debating whether men should receive spousal maintenance (what we call alimony) at all, suggesting it is not much better here.

Most articles I've seen on the subject seem to try and explain away this huge discrepancy by blaming it on "male pride". I'm deeply sceptical of this convenient excuse. Surely lawyers should be advising their clients properly and judges should be keen to ensure fair settlements? Can this really be all be overridden by men feeling like the shouldn't claim alimony or is the system expecting them not to claim? Many of the articles are also filled with quotes from successful women complaining that it would "feel wrong" to pay maintenance to their husband in the event of a divorce. There is clearly a huge social double standard that is still highly influential on the outcome of divorce settlements.

So what we get are higher earning men still subject to long term alimony settlements against them and higher earning women avoiding the same.


----------



## Crillson (Sep 20, 2020)

manfromlamancha said:


> I think what the OP is saying is that betrayed husbands in Sweden are not as afraid as some he reads about here of divorcing their cheating wives - they do not get taken to the cleaners like betrayed husbands do in the USA or UK, since it is considered that wives are capable of earning their own living - I have personally seen this to be true in Sweden but then you have to remember that Sweden has an exceptional social system for supporting its people (so divorced wives/mothers are not as lacking financially) which is based on high taxes when you do work, AND Sweden is a country that is more than double the size of the UK but with a population of less than that of London (so jobs are a plenty).
> 
> OP, you know that the financial freedom Swedish citizens enjoy is simply not achievable in countries with much larger populations and so men/husbands are held financially responsible for their wives and children - so I think you know the answer to your question. You are simply trying to point out that in Sweden a betrayed husband (or wife) does not have to stay in a broken marriage simply "for the kids" or "because of finances". Well great! Whoopy doo for you! Wish we coud all have that financial freedom but we live in the social western world that we do, I guess.


Thank you for the answer, i think. I dont understand why the population have anything to do with it.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

Crillson said:


> Thank you for the answer, i think. I dont understand why the population have anything to do with it.


The only point that I am making is that it is very difficult to have the social system that Sweden has in larger populations. Although Sweden is large in geographical area, it is tiny in population and so the government can afford to offer its citizens the social support that they get - it works there because the numbers are smaller. Trying to implement that social system in larger populations is much more difficult. France, Germany and Spain have social systems but France and Spain struggle with theirs as does the UK.


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

manfromlamancha said:


> The only point that I am making is that it is very difficult to have the social system that Sweden has in larger populations. Although Sweden is large in geographical area, it is tiny in population and so the government can afford to offer its citizens the social support that they get - it works there because the numbers are smaller. Trying to implement that social system in larger populations is much more difficult. France, Germany and Spain have social systems but France and Spain struggle with theirs as does the UK.


It is more to do with tax rates than size tbh. The UK likes the idea of the Swedish system, but wants to do it with American tax rates.


----------



## Evinrude58 (Jun 16, 2014)

manfromlamancha said:


> The only point that I am making is that it is very difficult to have the social system that Sweden has in larger populations. Although Sweden is large in geographical area, it is tiny in population and so the government can afford to offer its citizens the social support that they get - it works there because the numbers are smaller. Trying to implement that social system in larger populations is much more difficult. France, Germany and Spain have social systems but France and Spain struggle with theirs as does the UK.


Seems like a pretty awesome argument for taking steps in population reduction.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

AGoodFlogging said:


> It is more to do with tax rates than size tbh. The UK likes the idea of the Swedish system, but wants to do it with American tax rates.


As you probably know, Swedish tax rates are higher than in the UK and the USA - they use the money to fund the social system which includes those who cannot work as well as those who will not work. This is only do-able up to a limit when dealing with population. For comparison - Sweden approx 10million people (less than Greater London) vs UK approx 60million vs USA approx 330million people. Same applies when dealing with social allowances of divorcees etc.

So it is not just tax rates but numbers as well. As you say the UK may well like the Swedish system but has no chance of being able to implement it in the UK - we are already struggling with the benefits we give/get now - what do you think would happen if we increased our taxes and started doling out more money into the social system?


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

Evinrude58 said:


> Seems like a pretty awesome argument for taking steps in population reduction.


Or breaking up a large union into smaller countries that are responsible for their own financial administration? But with less defense and trading power?


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

manfromlamancha said:


> As you probably know, Swedish tax rates are higher than in the UK and the USA - they use the money to fund the social system which includes those who cannot work as well as those who will not work. This is only do-able up to a limit when dealing with population. For comparison - Sweden approx 10million people (less than Greater London) vs UK approx 60million vs USA approx 330million people. Same applies when dealing with social allowances of divorcees etc.
> 
> So it is not just tax rates but numbers as well. As you say the UK may well like the Swedish system but has no chance of being able to implement it in the UK - we are already struggling with the benefits we give/get now - what do you think would happen if we increased our taxes and started doling out more money into the social system?


We'll have to agree to disagree. You've just restated that it won't work without providing a reason why. I can't see any reason why a social welfare system such as Sweden's can't be applied at a larger scale. The economies of scale would work in the favour of larger systems by providing greater purchasing power as well as larger tax revenues that go with a larger population.

Whilst there will be larger numbers of benefits claimants in larger countries there are also larger numbers of tax payers to support the system. The affordability of social welfare is more linked to tax rates, the strength of the economy (tax revenue versus expenditure, % unemployment rate) and the demography of the population (% working age population). Larger European countries struggling with the welfare state are doing so because of one or more of these issues not their size. I've talked about the UK, but if we look at France there is a demographic issue as well in that there is resistance to reform of the pensions system to account for the fact that people live much longer now. In France we still see train drivers retiring in their 50s on full pensions.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

AGoodFlogging said:


> We'll have to agree to disagree. You've just restated that it won't work without providing a reason why. I can't see any reason why a social welfare system such as Sweden's can't be applied at a larger scale. The economies of scale would work in the favour of larger systems by providing greater purchasing power as well as larger tax revenues that go with a larger population.
> 
> Whilst there will be larger numbers of benefits claimants in larger countries there are also larger numbers of tax payers to support the system. The affordability of social welfare is more linked to tax rates, the strength of the economy (tax revenue versus expenditure, % unemployment rate) and the demography of the population (% working age population). Larger European countries struggling with the welfare state are doing so because of one or more of these issues not their size. I've talked about the UK, but if we look at France there is a demographic issue as well in that there is resistance to reform of the pensions system to account for the fact that people live much longer now. In France we still see train drivers retiring in their 50s on full pensions.


The why is embedded in the very soul of capitalism. The resistance to reward idleness and the general mistrust of socialism (right or wrong) is what wil cause most of the western world to resist. France's system is fraught with problems and I am not sure that you can hold them up as an example of how this could work on a larger scale (try being a man and getting divorced in France or worse, try being non-French and fighting a custody battle in France). In an ideal world yes it would work, but in an ideal world, we could all live in a Star Trek type scenario (a single federation where money is not important).


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

manfromlamancha said:


> The why is embedded in the very soul of capitalism. The resistance to reward idleness and the general mistrust of socialism (right or wrong) is what wil cause most of the western world to resist. France's system is fraught with problems and I am not sure that you can hold them up as an example of how this could work on a larger scale (try being a man and getting divorced in France or worse, try being non-French and fighting a custody battle in France). In an ideal world yes it would work, but in an ideal world, we could all live in a Star Trek type scenario (a single federation where money is not important).


Yeah none of that has anything to do with the size of a country being a reason it can't be applied. You are just going back to what I said earlier about certain countries wanting to be low tax. That is a political choice, nothing to do with the size of their population.

As for France having problems, sure, but so do the lower tax systems in the UK and US. We have massive social care black hole in the UK. The US has huge health inequality despite spending huge amounts of their gdp on healthcare.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

AGoodFlogging said:


> Yeah none of that has anything to do with the size of a country being a reason it can't be applied. You are just going back to what I said earlier about certain countries wanting to be low tax. That is a political choice, nothing to do with the size of their population.
> 
> As for France having problems, sure, but so do the lower tax systems in the UK and US. We have massive social care black hole in the UK. The US has huge health inequality despite spending huge amounts of their gdp on healthcare.


As I said, in an ideal world anything is possible (back to my Star Trek comment). We would not enjoy the other benefits we get from being a "commercially successful" country if we did adopt Sweden's system though. We cannot fund defence (as in "protect the oil" defence) without money and that money cannot be used for social benefits. Also the private sector have now proven to be way more successful at generating the necessary funds. So rewarding anyone (no matter how deserving) for being out of work is counterproductive to this. Small country, no real defence, being protected by a general European outlook - yeah maybe. The black hole we have in the UK is by design I sometimes think. 

I think it would be naive to think any large nation could sustain Sweden's benefits system without either some form of communism being in place and even that would not work for long. So I still maintain that size has a lot to do with it in the world in which we live.


----------



## AGoodFlogging (Dec 19, 2020)

manfromlamancha said:


> As I said, in an ideal world anything is possible (back to my Star Trek comment). We would not enjoy the other benefits we get from being a "commercially successful" country if we did adopt Sweden's system though. We cannot fund defence (as in "protect the oil" defence) without money and that money cannot be used for social benefits. Also the private sector have now proven to be way more successful at generating the necessary funds. So rewarding anyone (no matter how deserving) for being out of work is counterproductive to this. Small country, no real defence, being protected by a general European outlook - yeah maybe. The black hole we have in the UK is by design I sometimes think.
> 
> I think it would be naive to think any large nation could sustain Sweden's benefits system without either some form of communism being in place and even that would not work for long. So I still maintain that size has a lot to do with it in the world in which we live.


France spends more than us on defence. I think you've been listening to the Tory propaganda for too long.

We spend about the same as Germany on defence. They can afford to look after their people just fine.

Like I said, agree to disagree here. Nothing you have said is anything other than a political ideology.


----------



## manfromlamancha (Jul 4, 2013)

AGoodFlogging said:


> France spends more than us on defence. I think you've been listening to the Tory propaganda for too long.
> 
> We spend about the same as Germany on defence. They can afford to look after their people just fine.
> 
> Like I said, agree to disagree here. Nothing you have said is anything other than a political ideology.


Lets agree to disagree - I agree with this. However, the ideology is coming from you when you think that we can do what Sweden does by idealistically applying some formula to our taxation etc. And Germany taking care of its people just fine is not the same as providing for their people in the same way as Sweden. As for France spending more on defence - that is incorrect - you are failing to take into consideration our joint programmes with the USA.


----------

