Defend Alimony

[zengirl]

But your wife worked, carhill. That's different. I only really believe in alimony if the wife/husband stays home to care for the house/kids OR works substantially less to do so, as it allows the other to nurture their career. This happens a lot. That's when financial support is promised. If I agreed to such a partnership, I'd assume that it'd be ongoing, even if problems arose in the marriage which became impossible to reconcile. So many men want their wives to take career hits for them, but they don't want to pay for it later.

 

As I said, I'd never be out of work long, personally, though if I took a few years off with a young child and then my husband left me or our marriage became unsustainable, I'd expect financial compensation for those years. Without insurance of such, I'd never be able to do it----it wouldn't be my first personal choice, generally, at any rate, but doing what's best for kids is important. I'd also never be willing to relocate for a spouse, without all finances joined totally, and some financial consideration should things not work out.

 

I'm not emotionally scarred. I have an excellent step-father, who'd I believe would gladly pay my mother sufficient alimony if the marriage became defunct and divide assets fairly. I think part of the reason the marriage will never become defunct is that he is such a man. But, unfortunately, all men are not such men, and all women (if they're the higher earning partner) are not such women, and so alimony and protecting laws exist for the weaker partner.

Edited December 24, 2010 by zengirl

[112233]

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

 

I read the marriage license and listened to the vows, the part about "and he shall owe you a living forever" wasn't there. Yet, she got $450K in assets and $150K in alimony.

 

Women wonder why men are reluctant to put on the harness get married. If they enslave themselves decide to marry it's usually because they're young and innocent or don't have any realistic prospects worth protecting.

[desertIslandCactus]

After the 22 yr marriage my bookkeeping skills were obsolete. I was no longer able to get the good job I had before because of lack of computer skills.

 

So yes, when he left me for another - I was happy to receive spousal support. It was Not "half" his income, it was a fraction.

 

An attorney had told me that lifetime spousal support is awarded but seldom realized, as the status of the H usually changes. He died less than ten yrs later.

[fltc]

The only correct response regarding alimony is, "It depends." We expect the courts to be fair, if a woman is out of the job market for some time, a court can order temporary alimony, if she's unable to work then permanent alimony is fair, if the woman is earning a living wage then any alimony is unfair.

 

Child support is a completely different issue and the courts should treat it as such.

 

What the courts do and what the courts *should* do are also different issues, unfortunately. A friend was ordered to pay crippling alimony AND child support to a woman who's salary was greater than his(!) and who'd ADULT children lived with their father. Of course the judge was a woman and of course her ruling was overturned but it took several years to do so.... The judge who set aside the earlier ruling (a man!) looked my friend in the eye, leaned forward across the bench and said, "Son, you've been SCREWED!"

[112233]

After the 22 yr marriage my bookkeeping skills were obsolete. I was no longer able to get the good job I had before because of lack of computer skills.

 

You know, if you had fought your way out of the basement/prison ...

 

OK, so realistically, did he really prohibit you from continuing to work? Did he stop you when you tried to keep your skills up to date? Did he refuse to help you when you asked to continue your work or start your business? Did the two of you decide to sacrifice your career when children were born?

 

If so, your example is different from the one I asked you to discuss, get on topic. If not, it's your own fault, why should he pay?

[yah]

What the courts do and what the courts *should* do are also different issues, unfortunately.

 

Yes! All along I pointed out the reason for alimony. In principle, it was meant for those who completely gave up their career and supported that of their spouse. I do believe in the principle of alimony. Is alimony always fair? No, it isn't. Such was the case for carhill.

 

Let me just say that, if I were to give up my career because it was a *joint* decision to do so, I will have measures in place ensuring I get *something* in the case of a divorce. If I did not give up my career, *I* would not take alimony.

 

 

Women wonder why men are reluctant to put on the harness get married. If they enslave themselves decide to marry it's usually because they're young and innocent or don't have any realistic prospects worth protecting.

 

I thought you wanted 'lunatic women haters' to stay away.

[112233]

The only correct response regarding alimony is, "It depends." We expect the courts to be fair, if a woman is out of the job market for some time, a court can order temporary alimony,

 

Humane, for sure, but fair or moral? Why was she out of the job market? What was she doing before and what was her standard of living then? I don't agree that simply marrying well should be like a winning lottery ticket.

 

 

 

if she's unable to work then permanent alimony is fair,

 

Why? If her inability is the fault of her husband then maybe he's a criminal, but if it's just part of life, what makes her further maintenance any other persons concern?

 

 

One interesting little point; a lot of alimony judgments contain a clause that says if she remarries the payments end. Hmmmm. What is that saying?

[112233]

I thought you wanted 'lunatic women haters' to stay away.

 

I don't hate women, I hate anyone who sees something someone else has and they want and then work out a way to take it. It's disgusting.

[desertIslandCactus]

You know, if you had fought your way out of the basement/prison ...

 

OK, so realistically, did he really prohibit you from continuing to work? Did he stop you when you tried to keep your skills up to date? Did he refuse to help you when you asked to continue your work or start your business? Did the two of you decide to sacrifice your career when children were born?

 

If so, your example is different from the one I asked you to discuss, get on topic. If not, it's your own fault, why should he pay?

 

You asked the "lunatic woman haters" to stay away .. Why, because you'd have too much competition. Bring on the woman haters ... who cares!!

[Woggle]

If a man cheats, abuses her or otherwise is an awful husband then I can see him paying but in a walkaway wife type of situation or an affair I don't see why he should have to give her a dime. I was lucky that the judge saw through my ex and her crap because if not I would be supporting her now. Soon the taxpayers of Florida will be supporting though.

[desertIslandCactus]

You know, if you had fought your way out of the basement/prison ...

 

OK, so realistically, did he really prohibit you from continuing to work? Did he stop you when you tried to keep your skills up to date? Did he refuse to help you when you asked to continue your work or start your business? Did the two of you decide to sacrifice your career when children were born?

 

If so, your example is different from the one I asked you to discuss, get on topic. If not, it's your own fault, why should he pay?

 

Anything But the 'basement prison'.. I became an accomplished cook, maintained the pool, and did all the gardening.. Hung wallpaper, loved decorating.. We chose for me to stay home with the children ... And It payed off. They are wonderfully responsible, loyal intelligent, dilligent men.

 

I did work some during the marriage, and he and I established our family business together.

 

And Absolutely you are correct .. When I knew how much I enjoyed food prep, I should have gone for extended schooling and gotten my dietitian license early on .. and Before being dumped..

 

And what's with the sacrificing the "career" bull... Women mostly work, because housing and living expenses have become too high for one salary.. Thus their babies have to go to child care at six weeks.

[desertIslandCactus]

You know, if you had fought your way out of the basement/prison ...

 

OK, so realistically, did he really prohibit you from continuing to work? Did he stop you when you tried to keep your skills up to date? Did he refuse to help you when you asked to continue your work or start your business? Did the two of you decide to sacrifice your career when children were born?

 

If so, your example is different from the one I asked you to discuss, get on topic. If not, it's your own fault, why should he pay?

 

Because my state is a community property state, the community property is to be divided (what's left after attorneys)..

 

I thought H should keep our business and I should keep our home.

 

H and his ladylove were Determined that my sons and myself should be booted out of our family home and it to be sold.

 

They got their way. But there was so much fraud in the D, that I went after them with a civil suit, won, and took the business..

 

Moral of the story: Crime doesn't pay, guys...

[112233]

And what's with the sacrificing the "career" bull... Women mostly work, because housing and living expenses have become too high for one salary.. Thus their babies have to go to child care at six weeks.

 

Not on topic, kids and the fallout that happens around the complexity they bring are not the discussion.

 

Outside kids, what reason would you have for not continuing work or your education?

 

 

 

Moral of the story: Crime doesn't pay, guys...

 

Again, not topical.

[musemaj11]

Im for spousal support, but not 50/50. Thats just foolish. 25% should be the most.

 

Anyway, marriage is a foolish thing to do for people with money. Only marry if its with someone with comparably equal assets or education (potential income).

Edited December 24, 2010 by musemaj11

[carhill]

But your wife worked, carhill. That's different.

 

I've said that, repeatedly. She was working full time when she was getting 600.00/mo from her ex husband and another 250/mo for health insurance. Her alimony essentially paid the rent on her duplex. Alimony while working full time. That's the topic. Alimony. Defend it. I think that's patently *wrong*.

 

OK, no more LS for the week. I'm off to the beach.

[pureinheart]

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.

 

I personally think in some cases alimony is a crock. I never wanted alimony...I don't want their money, I have my own whether I work for Walmart or rocket scientist.

 

I totally agree CH, in exDM's case, he paid all the bills, she worked also and made as much as he did on a straight 40hr week. She sued for alimony, AND the money he had saved through inheritance and working (they kept their monies separate during the marriage).

 

First the judge caught her in a lie...she said she spent 800.00 a month in food on the expense report...she was crying broke, yet for entertainment had a large figure and had cell phone and internet and a bunch of other non essentials if one is claiming to be "that broke".

 

He saved every penny during the marriage and she blew her entire paycheck...the judges decision, also due in part to monies being separate during the marriage, was no alimony and I am talking a 30 yr marriage and she only worked 10 yrs of it...oh and she got none of his savings.

[pureinheart]

I've said that, repeatedly. She was working full time when she was getting 600.00/mo from her ex husband and another 250/mo for health insurance. Her alimony essentially paid the rent on her duplex. Alimony while working full time. That's the topic. Alimony. Defend it. I think that's patently *wrong*.

 

OK, no more LS for the week. I'm off to the beach.

 

Have fun at the beach CH...we've got rain up here:p

[fltc]

Originally Posted by fltc

The only correct response regarding alimony is, "It depends." We expect the courts to be fair, if a woman is out of the job market for some time, a court can order temporary alimony,

 

Humane, for sure, but fair or moral? Why was she out of the job market? What was she doing before and what was her standard of living then? I don't agree that simply marrying well should be like a winning lottery ticket.

 

Temporary alimony is a long way from winning a lottery, it's a small sum paid over (usually) 3 to 6 months to held her with getting settled into a new place and to help with job training if needed.

 

if she's unable to work then permanent alimony is fair

 

Why? If her inability is the fault of her husband then maybe he's a criminal, but if it's just part of life, what makes her further maintenance any other persons concern?

 

Because marriage is a partnership "for better or for worse", if one partners disability occurs during a marriage the other one shares responsibility or would you rather the taxpayers be stuck with the bill?

 

One interesting little point; a lot of alimony judgments contain a clause that says if she remarries the payments end. Hmmmm. What is that saying?

 

It's saying you have an uncanny ability to reply to posts w/o understanding the post to which you are replying? It's saying you have a real talent for straying off topic or making irrelevent comments?

[desertIslandCactus]

Im for spousal support, but not 50/50. Thats just foolish. 25% should be the most.

 

Anyway, marriage is a foolish thing to do for people with money. Only marry if its with someone with comparably equal assets or education (potential income).

 

I agree with this - equally yoked in every way.

 

Also, only marry if you (and your future spouse) intend to stick to the wedding vows, and stay together.

 

Divorce (or sin) can be hairy.

[112233]

I agree with this - equally yoked in every way.

 

Enjoy that lesbian marriage. I want a woman and a prenup.

[pureinheart]

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.
  

 

 

As this tide changes, I bet the attitude about alimony will too.

[Star Gazer]

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?

 

No one in their right mind enters a marriage believing it will end. It's the emotional and financial risk BOTH people take, NOT just husbands.

 

You should read case law on the public policy behind community property; it should explain it all for you.

[112233]

As this tide changes, I bet the attitude about alimony will too.

 

Absolutely, the only women I've seen against alimony so far are the ones who discover their fella is paying it. Then well, .... my god it's unfair. I can't imagine how evil it must be if a woman is actually paying.

[Woggle]

As this tide changes, I bet the attitude about alimony will too.

 

I bet it will. When we start to see a large number of women supporting their exes is when the law will finally start to change.

[112233]

It's the emotional and financial risk BOTH people take, NOT just husbands.

 

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)
  

 

 

Hmmm really?