Defend Alimony

[desertIslandCactus]

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

 

The term "equally yoked" is from the Bible. And marriage is meant for a man and a woman.

 

I agree that a prenup should definitely happen when the two come into the M with unequal assets. My H and I were in our early 20's and neither of us had anything but our vehicles.

[112233]

The term "equally yoked" is from the Bible

 

I'd like chapter, verse and translation on that. I don't recall that passage but it's been a while since I studied the Bible.

[Art_Critic]

Alimony is used to level the playing field when 2 spouses are dissolving a marriage and their income levels are so disproportionate that it isn't fair to the lower income party and if no alimony were paid they wouldn't be able to land on their feet.

 

In many marriages income is one sided.. you ever heard the phrase bringing home the bacon?

Why would it be fair for a divorce to happen and the spouse that raised the children or gave up her job be thrown out on the street and wind up in a homeless shelter.

 

By the way... Alimony payments are tax deductible today and normally only temporary alimony is awarded unless it is a very long marriage and the spouse is older.

 

Alimony payments may also be used to pay an ex spouse for any reason an amount that is owed them.

I was awarded lump sum alimony in my first marriage because I was owed about 120k for loans I had given her to help her run her company.

I had to take less than half that in mediation but it was decided that Lump Sum Alimony fit because it cannot be discharged in the event of a bankruptcy, if she had just cut me a check and then filed bankruptcy in 6 months that payment would have been reversed because of the insider laws of bankruptcy.

[pureinheart]

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.

 

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.

 

You guys are right:)

 

I for one will be very glad to see this change, it has been one sided for way too long.

 

I have seen too many friends get so screwed over.

[desertIslandCactus]

I'd like chapter, verse and translation on that. I don't recall that passage but it's been a while since I studied the Bible.

 

2 Corrinthians 6:14 Be not unequally yoked together with nonbelievers

 

Scripture talks about believers/nonbelievers. I consider the term in other aspects as well.

[112233]

I consider the term in other aspects as well.

 

I knew that one but it's clear it has a different context. In fact given the nature of male and female equality at that time I really doubt the idea is even in the Bible let alone the quote.

 

An admonition against marrying someone of a different faith? Fail.

[desertIslandCactus]

I knew that one but it's clear it has a different context. In fact given the nature of male and female equality at that time I really doubt the idea is even in the Bible let alone the quote.

 

An admonition against marrying someone of a different faith? Fail.

 

 

In those days it was Meant that the two Stay married. And a lot of the pain in what is now allowed, would be avoided.

[112233]

In those days it was Meant that the two Stay married. And a lot of the pain in what is now allowed, would be avoided.

 

OK fine but ... focus. Alimony. Justify. For f**ksake.

[desertIslandCactus]

OK fine but ... focus. Alimony. Justify. For f**ksake.

 

Preventive medicine: Be very careful who you marry. Make it work.

[112233]

Preventive medicine: Be very careful who you marry. Make it work.

 

Sooo no. This isn't the red flags thread or the choose wisely thread. It's the "we failed, it went sideways, but why are you still holding onto my paycheck" thread.

 

Try please. Try to be on topic.

[desertIslandCactus]

Sooo no. This isn't the red flags thread or the choose wisely thread. It's the "we failed, it went sideways, but why are you still holding onto my paycheck" thread.

 

Try please. Try to be on topic.

 

For everything there is but a season ??

[desertIslandCactus]

I'VE GOT IT !!!

 

Findher a husband. (pof.com is free) ...

[zengirl]

Sooo no. This isn't the red flags thread or the choose wisely thread. It's the "we failed, it went sideways, but why are you still holding onto my paycheck" thread.

 

Try please. Try to be on topic.

 

Those two discussions are the same. If you have or want to have a wife/husband that stays at home, you are making a very risky investment, should things go south. And the ramifications are clear. It's not like, "Oh, goodness, I never thought they'd award my SAHW alimony in a million years!" You knew it could happen if you divorced. If you didn't make your choices wisely, that's a factor.

 

Discussing financial issues, like whether one party will stay at home and the financial inequity it builds, is crucial to building a strong marriage. It's no wonder that people find themselves financially 'surprised' in most marriages that fail. They failed to do the due diligence in the first place.

[waynebrady]

Those two discussions are the same. If you have or want to have a wife/husband that stays at home, you are making a very risky investment, should things go south. And the ramifications are clear. It's not like, "Oh, goodness, I never thought they'd award my SAHW alimony in a million years!" You knew it could happen if you divorced. If you didn't make your choices wisely, that's a factor.

 

Discussing financial issues, like whether one party will stay at home and the financial inequity it builds, is crucial to building a strong marriage. It's no wonder that people find themselves financially 'surprised' in most marriages that fail. They failed to do the due diligence in the first place.

 

If the woman wants to stay at home, it's her own choice and she should take the consequenses not the man. Women don't get forced to stay at home, and if they are they should just go to the police. The man has no say in if the woman should stay at home or not, it's the woman's own decision. The man shouldn't be punished for it.

[112233]

If you have or want to have a wife/husband that stays at home, you are making a very risky investment, should things go south.

 

She quits her full time job to go part time in a housecleaning business and do volunteer work.

 

They meet, date, marry. She decides to quit the business and he just wants her to be happy. Her income is tiny compared to his anyway and cleaning houses isn't a career track. In a few years she stops with the volunteer work altogether and takes up hobbies she enjoys instead. When it's time to relocate, she lobbies for and gets a home site that's perfect for her hobbies, although it's quite inconvenient for his work. Twice at considerable extra expense.

 

At what point did her life choices become his responsibility forever? We cannot control what another person does, that would be wrong, and the basic rule that authority, power or influence are proportional to responsibility still holds. To the extent that he enabled her to waste 20 years of her life in early retirement, he is probably slightly responsible from a moral standpoint however that should be very slight, as his options were extremely limited.

 

Instead, when she complains about him working too much and moves out, she takes no bills, most of the investments, and a big alimony settlement. She could have just as easily decided to go to school or learn multiple marketable skills in the 20 years she spent playing. She could have done any number of things, he allowed her freedom to choose. She decided to pursue pleasurable pursuits, her choice.

 

I would love to get that deal except my conscience wouldn't let me.

 

In a fair world, the assets would be split, the debts would be split, and they would be free to continue as they individually did before they married. This is fair to everyone, if the relationship doesn't work, everything goes back to the way it was.

 

I can understand the idea that say, he put her through school to become a surgeon and she leaves, well maybe he's entitled to some compensation there but this is not the case, she made her own choices and he funded her without complaint. If anything she should owe him for the 20 year vacation, but I'm not promoting that; my conscience wouldn't let me.

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

Man and woman get married. The assumption/hope is that the marriage is for life.

 

One spouse, for whatever reason, gives up their job/career.

 

The other spouse has a choice.

*Remain in the marriage as the sole provider of a fully dependent spouse.

*Remain in the marriage as the sole provider with the understanding that other spouse will continue education or volunteer to maintain work skills.

*Remain in the marriage with the understanding that you will NOT be the sole provider(Get back to work).

*Divorce.

 

The OP was framed around the first option. Neither spouse was forced into this option.

 

Since the expectation of marriage is for life, the working spouse accepted the responsibility of a lifetime of support for the other. Another assumption is that all financial decisions are made with expectation that the marriage will continue.

 

In today's workforce, 2-3 years can harmful to one's career. Ten or more years and you're starting at the bottom again, if you're lucky to get back. Especially in more technical careers.

 

Then the unexpected. Divorce. Working on previous assumptions, the SAH spouse would be financially crippled at the end of the marriage. No financial plan has been made for the independence of the SAH spouse.

 

At this point a combination of community assets/alimony should be provided to help the SAH spouse become independent. Whether alimony is temporary or permanent is dependent on length of the marriage. If the marriage was 30/40 years, the SAH spouse would be 60+ years old. Very few job opportunities exist at that age, barring self-employment. The shorter the marriage the more emphasis should be placed on temporary/no alimony.

 

The short and skinny of it, IMO, if you don't like the idea of alimony don't become the sole provider or don't get married. If you do choose to marry plan for all contingencies including divorce.

[112233]

One spouse, for whatever reason, gives up their job/career.

 

The other spouse has a choice.

 

....

 

*Divorce.

 

The OP was framed around the first option. Neither spouse was forced into this option.

 

So your "solution" is to divorce.

 

In the above scenario, even if she had continued as a part time house cleaner, her income would have been at best 10% that of her husband, as it was BEFORE they married. Quitting her job and abandoning her career was immaterial to her future earning prospects. Not only did she sacrifice NOTHING she gained and ignored opportunities to improve her earning ability.

 

If she had decided to remain employed, she would STILL have gotten a similar deal, simply due to courts feeling that she is "entitled" to a standard of living she can't provide on her own. I want to be entitled to that too, pay me.

 

When she left, she had the same earning ability she ever had. Her life choices while married are the direct cause of that. The marriage in no way damaged her ability to earn, in fact it had to potential to enhance it, a potential she chose not to capitalize on.

 

It's cute to pretend that married people somehow become a fused unit but the reality is they remain individuals and make their own choices.

[112233]

The short and skinny of it' date=' IMO, if you don't like the idea of alimony don't become the sole provider or don't get married. If you do choose to marry plan for all contingencies including divorce.[/quote']

 

Prenup. Prenup. Prenup.

 

Women wonder why men with prospects just want to "date".

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

At what point did her life choices become his responsibility forever?

 

The moment he accepts them without addressing his grievances.

 

In a fair world, the assets would be split, the debts would be split, and they would be free to continue as they individually did before they married. This is fair to everyone, if the relationship doesn't work, everything goes back to the way it was.

 

True. But what would be a fair split? To me the split should be proportional with the ability to recover assets and to pay for the debts. But only to those assets/debts acquired during the marriage. Bolded I think is unrealistic.

[Hi.P.O'Crit]

I agree with prenups. But they're only useful when one partner comes into the marriage with a significant financial advantage.

[zengirl]

The fact is, that had he not supported her, she may have --- probably would have --- built better skills, developed the house-cleaning business, or done any number of things to develop higher income. We'll never know. However, by making the decision together for her to stay at home, her husband (and gender wouldn't matter here, by the way, change the wife and husband, and I'd still feel this way) has agreed to support her. Unless he had her sign papers that said support would end with the marriage, it is only fair that some of it continue after. They both made the financial choice, and all assets----including his current and future income---are joint.

 

It's interesting to note alimony is awarded in a divorce. Not after. It is awarded (the judgement is made) during the distribution of assets, and it essentially a distribution of joint assets. His income is still hers, too, when it is decided. The judgment decides what portion is hers. Generally, not half of future income, or even close.

 

You can't go into What Ifs too far. No one knows what her financial life would be like had she not gotten married, nor his. You can assume all you like, but you can never really know.

 

When there is clear financial inequity, and one partner would be financially crippled by divorce, settlements are needed. If both partners work, support themselves readily, and have individual careers, alimony is silly, unless there is a huge disparity of income (i.e. they have debts/assets, such as car loans, together that one could hardly pay half of on their own; in that case, a settlement can generally handle it though).

[musemaj11]

Im glad that a lot of men have woken up these days and realize that marriage is often nothing more than financial slavery.

 

As the saying goes:

-Woman worries about the future until she finds a husband.

-Man never worries about the future until he finds a wife.

 

"In the girl nature has had in view what could in theatrical terms be called a stage-effect: it has provided her with superabundant beauty and charm for a few years at the expense of the whole remainder of her life, so that during these years she may so capture the imagination of a man that he is carried away into undertaking to support her honorably in some form or another for the rest of her life, a step he would seem hardly likely to take for purely rational considerations. Thus nature has equipped women, as it has all its creatures, with the tools and weapons she needs for securing her existence, and at just the time she needs them; in doing which nature has acted with its usual economy. For just as the female ant loses its wings after mating, since they are then superfluous, indeed harmful to the business of raising the family, so the woman usually loses her beauty after one or two childbeds, and probably for the same reason."

 

-Arthur Schopenhauer, a German philosopher

This was true in the 19th century and it is still true today. It is a timeless fact of life.

 

In my opinion, if there is one thing men need to learn from women, it is pragmatism. A man will marry a woman just because he finds her beautiful at that moment. He does not think long term. On the other hand, before marrying a man, a woman asks herself first and foremost how he is going to benefit her now and in the long run. If her calculation doesnt find the benefit outweighs the cost, then she will find someone else who can grant her higher 'net profit'. This is part of the main reason why very few women are dealing with paying alimony and giving up assets in a divorce because women would not marry a man who had less than her in the first place. They are pragmatic.

Edited December 26, 2010 by musemaj11

[pureinheart]

She quits her full time job to go part time in a housecleaning business and do volunteer work.

 

They meet, date, marry. She decides to quit the business and he just wants her to be happy. Her income is tiny compared to his anyway and cleaning houses isn't a career track. In a few years she stops with the volunteer work altogether and takes up hobbies she enjoys instead. When it's time to relocate, she lobbies for and gets a home site that's perfect for her hobbies, although it's quite inconvenient for his work. Twice at considerable extra expense.

 

At what point did her life choices become his responsibility forever? We cannot control what another person does, that would be wrong, and the basic rule that authority, power or influence are proportional to responsibility still holds. To the extent that he enabled her to waste 20 years of her life in early retirement, he is probably slightly responsible from a moral standpoint however that should be very slight, as his options were extremely limited.

 

Instead, when she complains about him working too much and moves out, she takes no bills, most of the investments, and a big alimony settlement. She could have just as easily decided to go to school or learn multiple marketable skills in the 20 years she spent playing. She could have done any number of things, he allowed her freedom to choose. She decided to pursue pleasurable pursuits, her choice.

 

I would love to get that deal except my conscience wouldn't let me.

 

In a fair world, the assets would be split, the debts would be split, and they would be free to continue as they individually did before they married. This is fair to everyone, if the relationship doesn't work, everything goes back to the way it was.

 

I can understand the idea that say, he put her through school to become a surgeon and she leaves, well maybe he's entitled to some compensation there but this is not the case, she made her own choices and he funded her without complaint. If anything she should owe him for the 20 year vacation, but I'm not promoting that; my conscience wouldn't let me.

 

123, I was shocked to read (first senario, not sure if it's your story or not) the total self-centered attitude. His well being should have been taken greatly into a much higher consideration.

 

First senario- he couldn't win for losing! Sorry, but this is how I see it...home chick plays for 20 years, gets board and leaves...it sounds to me like she had too much time on her hands...then the courts reward her?

 

If I told you what my ex's got away with it would make some sick....

Edited December 26, 2010 by pureinheart

[desertIslandCactus]

There are many good posts on here .. such as 55 & 68 attempting to logically explain to the OP the facts of life.

 

I don't know that a prenup protects against paying spousal support after a period of time, but although it appears that your chivalry is good and dead .. still, there's no cryin in baseball.

 

Grow up.

[threebyfate]

These gender war threads are always bizarre.

• If you don't want to get married, don't.
  
• If you want to get married, do.
  
• If you don't want a traditional marriage, don't.
  
• If you want a traditional marriage, do.
  

All the rest is moot unless you're dumb enough not to realize the consequences of your actions.