Jump to content

Defend Alimony


Recommended Posts

First, all the lunatic woman haters, please stay away, I really want to discuss this rationally.

 

 

 

"I've never understood how two people can get married, live together, and when they split somehow one is entitled to the others income even if they never contributed toward it.

 

Example: Woman has a housekeeping business, marries a doctor. Her income is insignificant compared to his and so she gives her business to her sister, who is also in that line of work. Her husband supports them both and she does whatever hobbies she wishes. They never have children. In 15 years she decides she's lost herself and needs to find something, so she moves out and files for divorce.

 

What on gods green earth entitles her to half or more the doctors income for years or decades?"

Link to post
Share on other sites

Think of marriage as a corporation, and -- without any prior agreements, such as a prenup -- everyone gets equal stock. So income and assets are equal for each. If the company breaks up and one person takes the income along with them (pretend it's like taking a patented product, copyrighted work, or mutual clients of the business), they often have to pay fees or even residuals continuously. The company still existed, both parties still had stake, and who put the most money in is not the issue. Both were equal partners.

 

Does that woman sound flaky? Yes. But, generally speaking, legal agreements are broad-based. The laws that protect that woman also protect the woman who helped her husband through med school, nurtured his career through residency, raised her husband's children, and sacrificed her own career for his ambitions, only for him to cheat on her with a leggy nurse decades later.

 

Marriage is a partnership and a legal combination of assets. You can choose to amend that or forego it with various legal documents, as well you should. One-fits-all doesn't work anymore.

 

Personally, I'd never enter into a marriage without it -- though I'd never seek alimony, likely, as I plan to keep working for the most part -- because I know I'd be unwilling to make any career sacrifices for my (future) husband or family without it, and that wouldn't be a marriage I'd want to have in my life. The legal protections allow you to be smart and let everything be OURS while sacrificing for someone.

 

So, I think things like alimony exist so that some marriages -- where there isn't a divorce -- can be stronger. Of course, it shouldn't be abused. (Of course, it, like EVERYTHING, will be.) However, if both parties decide that one party should give up their career and livelihood, the other partner is agreeing to support them indefinitely. That requires consideration when the marriage breaks up.

Edited by zengirl
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Think of marriage as a corporation, and -- without any prior agreements, such as a prenup -- everyone gets equal stock.

 

Oh I understand very well HOW it works, that's not the question. The arrangement is morally reprehensible, no one in his right mind would partner into such a corporation, bringing in 95% of the startup funds, 100% of the intellectual property, and then agree to an even split of company stock.

 

 

So where is the logical or moral ground for enforcing that on each husband?

 

 

Use my scenario to justify it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Does that woman sound flaky? Yes. But, generally speaking, legal agreements are broad-based. The laws that protect that woman also protect the woman who helped her husband through med school, nurtured his career through residency, raised her husband's children, and sacrificed her own career for his ambitions, only for him to cheat on her with a leggy nurse decades later.

 

Not all men cheat, there are many situations where the man has to pay alimony and he didn't do anything wrong.

 

IMO men should never have to pay alimony, nobodys forcing the woman to stay at home... It's the womans own choice to stay at home, but offcourse it's so horrible to sit at home all day and get fully supported economicly without having to work :rolleyes:

 

Bottom line, women who stay at home do it because it's their choice, the man is not forcing her to stay at home, it's her choice, why should the man get punished by having to pay alimony after the marriage is done because of something that was the woman's own choice?

 

And before any more women bring up men cheating again as an example, FAR from all men cheat.... I have seen it been stated many times that women initiate the majority of all divorces, but I suppose it must be the man's fault :rolleyes: after all, if a marriage ends it's never the woman's fault or the woman who has fallen out of love and just wants to move on.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Oh I understand very well HOW it works, that's not the question. The arrangement is morally reprehensible, no one in his right mind would partner into such a corporation, bringing in 95% of the startup funds, 100% of the intellectual property, and then agree to an even split of company stock.

 

 

So where is the logical or moral ground for enforcing that on each husband?

 

 

Use my scenario to justify it.

 

In your scenario, it is still legally justified. The husband agreed to it. He agreed to marry a woman who gave up her income, thus agreeing to support her. I don't believe there is any marriage where one person brings all the "start-up" or "intellectual property" but some things appear less tangible on a balance sheet is all. He accepted her as his partner, and they both took their 50%.

 

Easy solution: Don't marry a woman (OR man!) without a career, or who doesn't intend to keep her/his career, if you don't want to be on the hook for supporting them, whether the marriage works out or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
In your scenario, it is still legally justified.

 

Morally or logically. Legally is merely a matter of a bunch of lawyers opinions.

 

For that matter, what contract can hold up in court if the parties didn't have it available to read and signed without legal counsel, and outside parties were allowed to alter it after the fact? It'd get laughed out of court.

 

 

 

 

The husband agreed to it. He agreed to marry a woman who gave up her income, thus agreeing to support her.

 

Forever? Hardly. I went to work for a lot of companies in the past, but I don't still get paychecks. We entered into a relationship, it ran it's course and it's ended.

 

 

 

 

I don't believe there is any marriage where one person brings all the "start-up" or "intellectual property" but some things appear less tangible on a balance sheet is all. He accepted her as his partner, and they both took their 50%.

 

Again, I'm sure she is welcome to also exit with those intangible things as well, but no sane business contract would structure like this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Because its assumed that each partner gave equally to the marriage. When they split, all things should be split 50/50.

 

Finances are only one part of the marriage. The lesser earner may have contributed in other ways. Unfortunately, at the time of the divorce, assets and earnings are the only things that CAN be split, however unfair you think it is.

 

A judge cannot decide on a case-to-case basis (too time-consuming) so if a case fits the "mold" one person may end up with alimony.

 

That's my guess...

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
Finances are only one part of the marriage. The lesser earner may have contributed in other ways. Unfortunately, at the time of the divorce, assets and earnings are the only things that CAN be split, however unfair you think it is.

 

I have few issues with splitting everything that was acquired during the partnership 50/50, however if the earner is still on the hook for income, where is the maid service, sex, cooking and so on? Obviously the partnership is over and BOTH should go their own way.

 

Since the results of the partnership are split evenly, both parties bear the failure or enjoy the fruits of that success equally. If something of value is hard to split, well figure it out. People divide houses, how much harder can it get?

Link to post
Share on other sites
I have few issues with splitting everything that was acquired during the partnership 50/50, however if the earner is still on the hook for income, where is the maid service, sex, cooking and so on? Obviously the partnership is over and BOTH should go their own way.

 

Since the results of the partnership are split evenly, both parties bear the failure or enjoy the fruits of that success equally. If something of value is hard to split, well figure it out. People divide houses, how much harder can it get?

 

I think there are statistics out there stating that if one spouse stays home, the other is able to be more aggressive with their career, and thus, earns more. When the marriage is dissolved, in the absence of alimony, the earner keeps the higher income and the SAH spouse does not get back the time spent on housework, etc. Again, individual cases may differ, but I'm assuming this is the best-fit "mold."

Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as both spouses are employed/employable, the property settlement should address all non-child issues in the M. No need for alimony. Equality.

 

If one spouse put their income up their nose while the other invested wisely in the M, who do you think will get the better deal in a contested divorce action? The prudent saver? LOL.

 

It's just another example of the person who cares the least having the most control and power, blessed by the good 'ole U S of A.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As long as both spouses are employed/employable, the property settlement should address all non-child issues in the M. No need for alimony.

 

But that's just it; one spouse is no longer employable at the level they could have been.

 

It's pretty evident that if one person takes a long leave of absence from their job (and let me say here that this is a TWO-person decision in a marriage) they will be at a disadvantage when they attempt to re-enter. Alimony is meant to help that spouse "catch-up" and is temporary.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Doesn't matter. They can address the inequity in the property settlement, perhaps through an annuity.

 

My lawyer placed my chances of getting a piece of my exW's business income, since I was the disadvantaged spouse caring for my ill mother during much of our marriage, at exactly zero. Alimony works for women, not for men, or so he advised me. It didn't matter that I helped capitalize the business, nor that I supported it and offered logistical help, saving her money. Didn't matter. Did I say it didn't matter? I was employable/had business potential so the operative phrase was 'get your ass to work'.

 

Yep.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Author
I think there are statistics out there stating that if one spouse stays home, the other is able to be more aggressive with their career, and thus, earns more.

 

I know of no study that reached any such causal conclusion based on anything but conjecture. There is a body of evidence there is CORRELATION, sure, but it's could just as likely be driven by any number of factors. Also, the difference is small, less than 10% by quite a lot.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know of no study that reached any such causal conclusion based on anything but conjecture. There is a body of evidence there is CORRELATION, sure, but it's could just as likely be driven by any number of factors. Also, the difference is small, less than 10% by quite a lot.

 

Well, I guess the discussion ends here because I'm too tired to look up the studies. In college I studied this topic in depth in some pre-law classes regarding women and family affairs. You are right; at best the studies determine only STRONG association and not causation. However, no epi study CAN be done to prove causation. So if that is your argument, we'll only go 'round in circles.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Doesn't matter. They can address the inequity in the property settlement, perhaps through an annuity.

 

My lawyer placed my chances of getting a piece of my exW's business income, since I was the disadvantaged spouse caring for my ill mother during much of our marriage, at exactly zero. Alimony works for women, not for men, or so he advised me. It didn't matter that I helped capitalize the business, nor that I supported it and offered logistical help, saving her money. Didn't matter. Did I say it didn't matter? I was employable/had business potential so the operative phrase was 'get your ass to work'.

 

Yep.

 

I am not a judge or a lawyer so I don't know what you went through nor do I know the circumstances of the divorce. I'm sorry you did not receive part of your ex-W's assets. If you were an integral part of helping her to build the business to what it is today, I agree you should have gotten a better deal. Perhaps a better lawyer would've helped. Again, I'm not one.

 

I think the key was that you were employable, to the point where you could support yourself. From what I remember, alimony is rarely given nowadays. It was meant for drastic cases.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My exW was working full time when she divorced her last husband and received alimony until we married, in aggregate around four years, in addition to her ex paying her health insurance during that period. TBH, I learned a lifetime of valuable lessons about women from her. Great information. Eyes wide open now. :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
Not all men cheat, there are many situations where the man has to pay alimony and he didn't do anything wrong.

 

IMO men should never have to pay alimony, nobodys forcing the woman to stay at home... It's the womans own choice to stay at home, but offcourse it's so horrible to sit at home all day and get fully supported economicly without having to work :rolleyes:

 

Bottom line, women who stay at home do it because it's their choice, the man is not forcing her to stay at home, it's her choice, why should the man get punished by having to pay alimony after the marriage is done because of something that was the woman's own choice?

 

And before any more women bring up men cheating again as an example, FAR from all men cheat.... I have seen it been stated many times that women initiate the majority of all divorces, but I suppose it must be the man's fault :rolleyes: after all, if a marriage ends it's never the woman's fault or the woman who has fallen out of love and just wants to move on.

 

Sure, not all men cheat. Frankly, I think alimony should protect SAHDs as well, and if it doesn't, it needs an overhaul. Doesn't matter whose fault the divorce is. . . only whose income is lost.

 

Doesn't matter. They can address the inequity in the property settlement, perhaps through an annuity.

 

My lawyer placed my chances of getting a piece of my exW's business income, since I was the disadvantaged spouse caring for my ill mother during much of our marriage, at exactly zero. Alimony works for women, not for men, or so he advised me. It didn't matter that I helped capitalize the business, nor that I supported it and offered logistical help, saving her money. Didn't matter. Did I say it didn't matter? I was employable/had business potential so the operative phrase was 'get your ass to work'.

 

Yep.

 

So extend alimony to protect male spouses as well. I'm all for that. And some men do receive alimony. . . I have a friend who pays alimony to her ex-husband, a struggling musician who was a house-husband for most of their marriage.

 

If the inequity can be addressed through settlement, I think that's fine. Sometimes the inequity is vast. . . a person was a housewife/husband for 20 years with a wealthy husband/wife who up and left her/him? That person is never going to make a decent wage at that age, with no experience to speak of. In that case, alimony is the appropriate settlement. But it shouldn't be used in cases where the spouses both work at full-time jobs. A settlement can generally work in that case.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Alimony Statistics

 

 

  • Americans paid $9.4 billion in alimony to former spouses in 2007. (IRS)
  • That’s up from $5.6 billion a decade earlier. (IRS)
  • 97% of alimony-payers were men last year. (U.S. Census)
  • The percentage of women supporting ex-husbands is increasing. (U.S. Census)
  • Women made up 46.7% of the work force last year. (DOL)
  • That’s up from 41.2% in 1978. (DOL)
  • Women, 45 to 54 years old, earn 75% as much as men the same age.

Link to post
Share on other sites

In my exW's case, her ex made about twice her salary but she was able to function (necessities of living) fine without alimony. It was just icing on the cake. She had 'stuff', a new car, a nice wardrobe, plenty of money for discretionary spending and a great social life. She wasn't 'struggling'. They had been married eight years. She knew she wouldn't be able to do the same with me (my lawyer worked it out so that couldn't happen) so she went after property instead, and was marginally successful.

 

I could 'stretch' the concept back a couple generations and imagine my mom and dad divorcing after she had been out of the work force for 20+ years and still can't really see a clear health to the process. When she chose to work, and she did, back in the 70's, she could've easily survived (we're not talking about supporting children) on the salary/wages she was making. In our case, those wages helped put me through private school, since we were a family unit.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing more and more wealthy women extending equitable property settlements and alimony payments to the men who sacrifice to support them. As the statistics note, women are nearly half the workforce, on average, in my generation, still lag men in wages, but some segments of the female population are increasingly supporting their ex-husbands, though currently less than 3%. I'm a firm believer in equality and have long supported advancement and parity for women. With such comes responsibility and I know women will be consciencious in the discharge of their responsibilities. I support legal statute which ensures they are.

 

Marriage is a great teacher. I learned a lot. I think hard-won lessons are the most enduring. I consider the monetary costs, while substantial, to be tuition. The freedom from that prison is all the alimony I require. I can still afford to buy good friends modest Christmas gifts so life is OK. Happy holidays :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

I personally believe that no person is 'owed' a lifestyle and would support legislation which enforces that perspective as a matter of law. That was part of the reason I divorced, as my exW felt I 'owed' her a certain lifestyle. TBH, since I've been a sponge for women's 'stuff' over the decades, I've found her perspective to be quite common. Obviously, it's not one which is trumpted from the rooftops nor whispered in the ear of a prospective provider of that lifestyle whilst between the sheets.

 

Here's a phrase I've often heard: 'I know, if I ask him, he'll help me out' To me, the operative indicator is 'I know'; this indicates expectation. Expectation breeds entititlement, whether it be 'lifestyle' or the mechanics of its support.

 

When a woman or man makes a choice to leave the workforce, whether competely proactively or in partnership with their spouse, they do so fully cognizant of the costs and benefits of that choice. It's not a choice made in a vacuum and they are not incompentent to understand its weight in their lives. They *choose*. If they later make other choices, then those choices are equally weighed, considered and assigned value and meaning and this dynamic is accepted. This is the concept of responsibility.

 

As an example, while I made the *choice* to focus on making the last years of my mother's life comfortable while in her demented state, my business languished, though I still paid my bills. Concurrently, my exW, not having that focus, grew her business and has done quite well for herself. I took responsibility for my *choices*, irrespective of the impetus for them and in full acceptance of the impact of them. Now, in the midst of a regressive economy, I'm faced with reclaiming what was lost. Should I have petitioned the court to do that upon her back? Perhaps. We crunched the numbers on that, mainly the legal costs versus the benefits. In retrospect, I believe my emotions wrt to the decline and death of my mother impacted my sensibilities in these matters and perhaps precipitated capitulation versus combat. I just wasn't up to combat. I am now. What did happen won't happen again.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I think if you marry someone, and agree to support them through mutual decisions, you owe them the lifestyle promised, regardless of your romantic feelings later. You owe it because you offered it, promised it, and bound yourself to them through marriage, allowing them to make sacrifices for you, perhaps that bettered your career over their own. The simple way around this is, Don't agree to support them and support their decision to give up their income, if you don't intend to keep that promise forever.

 

I'm looking forward to seeing more and more wealthy women extending equitable property settlements and alimony payments to the men who sacrifice to support them. As the statistics note, women are nearly half the workforce, on average, in my generation, still lag men in wages, but some segments of the female population are increasingly supporting their ex-husbands, though currently less than 3%. I'm a firm believer in equality and have long supported advancement and parity for women. With such comes responsibility and I know women will be consciencious in the discharge of their responsibilities. I support legal statute which ensures they are.

 

I support the same statutes. I don't believe gender should be a consideration in alimony, custody, or child support. I just don't believe people should sacrifice for their partners, only to be cast away into poverty or relative poverty, later, by divorce. Regardless of gender.

 

Of course, that also means you should be very careful about who you marry.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think if you marry someone, and agree to support them through mutual decisions, you owe them the lifestyle promised

 

I disagree and will leave it at that, specifically about *owe*. I will make sure my lawyer covers that topic in a future prenuptial agreement.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I disagree and will leave it at that, specifically about *owe*. I will make sure my lawyer covers that topic in a future prenuptial agreement.

 

Which is exactly what you should do!

 

I just don't believe people should make promises and then take them back later.

 

I would say that I'd never give up my income because I'm terrified of what could happen, come divorce. I wouldn't even make financial sacrifices for my family if I was with a man who wouldn't want to honor that financially, if we divorced. I suppose as a child of divorce, who saw the financial ramifications it had on my mother -- she definitely did not "get" anything out of it -- I am very cautious.

 

This was one of those "woman initiated" divorces. My mom asked for the divorce, left him, and filed the paperwork. He cheated on her for their whole marriage, was an alcoholic, and started to run up huge credit card debt (partially in her name) and lied about it. To me, it is him who "initiated" the divorce, or never really allowed for a marriage perhaps, no matter what the statistic might suggest.

Link to post
Share on other sites
just_some_guy

DINKS, (dual income no kids), husband earns a good deal more, wife is capable and employed and earns more than enough for middle class lifestyle. During marriage, husband paid for everything, enabling to make maximum 401k contributions, plus maximum catch ups for over 50 workers. Net worth of couple substantially increased in community property interests, entirely as the result of husband's work, savings, investment and stock options. Marriage is 6 years. The community property is what it is, as a result, her net worth will be substantially increased from the marriage then when she went in. Husband has separate holdings and investments from before the marriage.

 

How alimony is warranted in such a condition is beyond me. But it will be awarded for half the length of marriage in this state.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I never promised a lifestyle to my exW and she never promised a lifestyle to me. We promised to *share* our lives with each other, come sickness and health, bla, bla. I never made any verbal nor written promise to 'take care of her' in a monetary/financial/lifestyle sense, nor she I. Oh, yeah, you know that part about 'richer OR poorer'? Yep, that part. We chose to *accept* each other, for richer or poorer. I accepted her, with her mountainload of debt from her last M. She accepted me, with the prosperity of a lifetime of accepting responsibility and bachelorhood. What happened next was supposed to be 'sharing', not *oweing*. Therin lay the incompatibility and unhealthiness.

 

This was one of those "woman initiated" divorces. My mom asked for the divorce, left him, and filed the paperwork. He cheated on her for their whole marriage, was an alcoholic, and started to run up huge credit card debt (partially in her name) and lied about it.

 

TBH, she came from a background a lot like yours and our MC frankly was amazed that we ever married, as we have such disparate perspectives on life, 'lifestyles' and healthy intimacy. I heard his words and accepted them. The money I spent on MC was the best investment I ever made. I'll bet you'll rarely hear that from a man.

 

As in all things, the person who cares the least has the most power and control. In your unfortunate circumstances, as a young person, that was your father. I can empathize, as I did with my exW in her nearly universal complaints about the unhealthiness of her familial history. She never accepted that I wasn't a part of that history nor deserving of the emotional response to it. Thankfully, I have departed that prison. Perhaps, in the end, she saw an inkling of her responsibility, and didn't seek alimony from me. Who knows. I'm just glad it's over.

 

I'll leave you with one parting bit of advice. All men aren't your father, just like all women aren't my exW's mother. Carrying that kind of stuff around throughout life burdens only yourself and those who choose to love you. The perpetrators of such pain could care less. We each have a choice. With that choice attends responsibility. If a man promises to 'take care of you', be sure to get that in writing and notarized. You won't ever hear it from me :)

Link to post
Share on other sites
×
×
  • Create New...