xxoo Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I can see splitting the assets after the debts are paid. That makes sense. I can't see why she is entitled to my income AFTERWARDS. I really can't see why I get the debt and she gets the almost all assets. What debt collector is going to allow the debt to be transferred to someone without the income to repay? That's not going to happen.
Got it Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I can see splitting the assets after the debts are paid. That makes sense. I can't see why she is entitled to my income AFTERWARDS. I really can't see why I get the debt and she gets the almost all assets. Did you ask your attorney? Why did she get the assets and you get the debt? Unless you are in the very small percent that has a decision by a judge, why is you didn't have a good attorney, you were a very bad boy, or you guys had some very bad debt ratio and you had all the earning power. Dumb move. In general - I am sorry but I have little sympathy for people who get married because they are in love, at least lust, see a combo of Leave it to Beaver, homemade porn, and nifty little rom com in their head, stay blissful ignorant on their state laws on divorce, BECAUSE THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN TO ME!! (cue gasp and hand on forehead), and then be utter shocked when they end up at the mediation table and shocked by what their attorney has broken down for them. Understand what you are signing when you are signing that marriage contract and know the good, bad and the ugly. Personally I never advise people to be a stay at home with out any earning potential. For every year you are out the workforce your earning potential takes a major hit. Even negating divorce, at any point your spouse can die, be incapacitated, etc. where suddenly you have to the be the bread winner. It is an exceedingly vulnerable position to be in. And I, personal, do not see the positives outweighing the risks - for anyone. But this is my personal view. Not everyone shares this. It is up to the partners to decide. I would be fine with my spouse being a stay at home; I don't want to and don't want the risk. Do I think something would happen? No. But life does and I don't want to be in a spot where I am struggling to live comfortably. The only thing I think that is reasonable - for myself personally, is each taking a year sabbatical at different times to raise the kids. Nothing more than a year or two, keep skills honed, and get back into the workforce. And in my husband's divorce, he assumed about 99% of the debt, they short sold the house, paid off the second mortgage debt, he pays 5K a month in child support and alimony, is paying the kids college, and other odds and ends. He mediated and wanted to take care of her. Why pay so much? Because his ex wife didn't work for part of their marriage and then part time. She didn't have the earning potential that he has. So he pays it until the youngest is 25. It is what it is. You have a spouse that doesn't work, you are going to foot that cost when you divorce. They agreed to the arrangement so both have to share the risk of it. And once that kid turns 25 he stops. His risk is done. Her's isn't. She will continue to function at a lower earning potential. That is the reality of it. So yes, short term there may be pain but looking at the big picture the one who worked still comes out the winner.
Got it Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 That's one reason why I'm never marrying again. One can't force their spouse to work if they don't want to, neither can they force them to stay home. Ultimately, the decision is up to the individual. As such, they face the final consequence of said decision. This is not how it currently works legally, but I believe it should. Thus, marriage is not a suitable choice for me. BS. Your spouse refuses to work, you divorce them then. Their history shows their earning potential and that is heavily factored in. You are not the victim you are opining to be regardless of how loud that violin may play.
toolforgrowth Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Exactly. I made enough that we didn't need her income, which honestly (assuming she picked up where she'd already left off) would have barely been noticeable. She was free to do as she wished, and she opted to buy horses and ride them, and do other fun things. 20(ish) years later and it's somehow my fault she's not on a career track. She could have gotten a couple advanced degrees and had a great career in that time. Precisely. Don't get me wrong, this is not an attack on women. I apply this same standard to men as well. For me, this is not a gender issue. This is a human issue.
Got it Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Exactly. I made enough that we didn't need her income, which honestly (assuming she picked up where she'd already left off) would have barely been noticeable. She was free to do as she wished, and she opted to buy horses and ride them, and do other fun things. 20(ish) years later and it's somehow my fault she's not on a career track. She could have gotten a couple advanced degrees and had a great career in that time. And you could have pushed that then, and made them a deal breaker but you didn't. You agreed, very least tacitly agreed, and so 20ish years later you are assuming some of the risk. Again, you chose each day not to divorce regardless of the "fairness" you felt. I also doubt you were actually even thinking about it until the rubber met the road and an attorney was spelling it out for you.
toolforgrowth Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 BS. Your spouse refuses to work, you divorce them then. Their history shows their earning potential and that is heavily factored in. You are not the victim you are opining to be regardless of how loud that violin may play. That's precisely what I would recommend: divorce your spouse if you are not comfortable with them not working.
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 What debt collector is going to allow the debt to be transferred to someone without the income to repay? That's not going to happen. I would understand using the assets to pay off the debts, and splitting the remaining assets. I would understand using the assets to pay off the debts, and splitting the remaining debt, which wasn't the situation but whatever. I would understand, splitting the assets and the debts evenly. I would, to a lesser degree, using the assets to pay off the debt and then if any debt remained, split that based on earning ability. I would not understand, but would have preferred, splitting the assets and then awarding the debt to the one with a penis. None of that is what happened. She got about 90% of the assets, and none of the debt. And you could have pushed that then, and made them a deal breaker but you didn't. You agreed, very least tacitly agreed, and so 20ish years later you are assuming some of the risk. See above, also, yes my advice now is avoid marriage, divorce early and often. Is that what I'm hearing?
toolforgrowth Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I would understand using the assets to pay off the debts, and splitting the remaining assets. I would understand using the assets to pay off the debts, and splitting the remaining debt, which wasn't the situation but whatever. I would understand, splitting the assets and the debts evenly. I would, to a lesser degree, using the assets to pay off the debt and then if any debt remained, split that based on earning ability. I would not understand, but would have preferred, splitting the assets and then awarding the debt to the one with a penis. None of that is what happened. She got about 90% of the assets, and none of the debt. See above, also, yes my advice now is avoid marriage, divorce early and often. Is that what I'm hearing? Never place marriage above your assets. That was a very valuable life lesson I learned as well. Thankfully, I was only married for five years so all I have to pay is child support for one kid. She also pretty much took everything in the house, but I'm okay with that. I got better stuff after she left anyway. 1
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Never place marriage above your assets. That was a very valuable life lesson I learned as well. Thankfully, I was only married for five years so all I have to pay is child support for one kid. She also pretty much took everything in the house, but I'm okay with that. I got better stuff after she left anyway. Mine was too busy riding horses to have kids, so that's a blessing. Small one. I'm just working like a horse, as I do, and rebuilding my life. I'm driving a 2012 car built by Germans, riding a late model sport bike, and everything is paid for, and I'm rebuilding my investments. I'm thinking to treat myself to a decent $6000 Swiss made timepiece this week, but maybe I will save that money. She has pissed away almost everything she got, and still doesn't work.
lollipopspot Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I would not understand, but would have preferred, splitting the assets and then awarding the debt to the one with a penis. You really don't get this, do you? This isn't about gender. It's about roles in the marriage. It would have been the same if a female had done what you did. The court system is gender neutral in this regard. It sounds as though you made some really poor choices, you didn't didn't understand the contract you signed, and now you're wanting to put the blame on others. I for one am glad that I don't have to pick up the pieces after you and your wife made her dependent on you. I'm glad as a taxpayer that I don't have to pay for that with higher taxes to support her because she was suddenly in a position where she couldn't support herself properly. And I'll bet on some level you are glad too that you don't have to pay for other people's poor planning. 1
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 I'm glad as a taxpayer that I don't have to pay for that with higher taxes to support her because she was suddenly in a position where she couldn't support herself properly. She had zero income when we married, and zero when we divorced. Explain how zero is less than zero, please. Once you do that, explain how it's fair to NOT pay off the "shared" debt with the "shared" assets first, then think about dividing what is left.
toolforgrowth Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 She had zero income when we married, and zero when we divorced. Explain how zero is less than zero, please. Once you do that, explain how it's fair to NOT pay off the "shared" debt with the "shared" assets first, then think about dividing what is left. That's the way it should be, but unfortunately it isn't. Here's another life lesson: eliminate all women without an income as potential wives. Or just forgo marriage all together. 1
thefooloftheyear Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 It does seem like there are far more men not looking at marriage as a viable living arrangement than there are women...Seems like women still want the white dress, the party and all the other bs... What does that mean? I guess you have to ask the guys.. TFY 1
123321 Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 That's the way it should be, but unfortunately it isn't. Here's another life lesson: eliminate all women without an income as potential wives. Or just forgo marriage all together. Those are basically the same for me. No one I want to marry is going to make anything near what I make, and it's not enough to have her working, or have her earning, it has to be a comparable amount or you're screwed. I'm thinking to just retire early and go someplace with less draconian laws. Just have GFs.
lollipopspot Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 No one I want to marry is going to make anything near what I make why not? .
toolforgrowth Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 Those are basically the same for me. No one I want to marry is going to make anything near what I make, and it's not enough to have her working, or have her earning, it has to be a comparable amount or you're screwed. I'm thinking to just retire early and go someplace with less draconian laws. Just have GFs. That's what I'm doing...just having GF's. My GF is like me, she has no desire to marry. We just want to be together. I couldn't be happier. 1
Woggle Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 My ex tried to get alimony after being married for one year claiming she doesn't work. I expected for us to have an equal partnership but it wasn't my fault that she became a junkie and couldn't hold down a job. I am glad the judge gave her squat. I can see splitting the assets but afterwards no able bodied adult should be entitled to be supported like they are some kind of child. 1
xxoo Posted May 27, 2015 Posted May 27, 2015 It's ironic that this thread has become about couples who modeled after 50s style marriage and it turned out to be a financial disaster. Modern marriage with two income earners is much safer for both men and women. 3
toolforgrowth Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 It's ironic that this thread has become about couples who modeled after 50s style marriage and it turned out to be a financial disaster. Modern marriage with two income earners is much safer for both men and women. I'd even go so far as to say they need to earn comparable amounts. If the person doesn't make as much as you, don't marry them. 1
123321 Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 why not? . Very few people earn what I earn, and I'm pretty damn picky when it comes to female companionship nowadays. Multiply one small number by another small number and you get a really small chance. It could happen, but I'm not holding my breath. it boils down to options, and having kids is looking less and less appealing to me, so why would I even get married? Given that, why not just date as I like? I have no need for marriage. It brings me nothing positive. Which is a common male theme. When was the last time you saw a 40 year old guy come here and cry that his GF wouldn't marry him? So rarely we might as well say never. 1
Weezy1973 Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 I really don't think any of the anti-feminism, pro 50s style posters have provided a shred of evidence/studies/facts, to support the assertion that society and children are better off with traditional marriages. That being said, I do think that the role of a man is a forgotten concept in the post-feminism era, and that in my mind is the thing that a lot of men are struggling with. What does it now mean to be a man? Where girls can do anything and be anything, the same does not seem to hold true for boys. What is the male equivalent of a tomboy? Can a boy grow up wanting to be a stay at home dad as a life goal? Has the world opened up for men in the same way it has for women post-feminism? What does masculinity even mean these days? Women certainly are still attracted to traditional masculine traits, yet they have no interest in a traditional life. Is it any wonder that many men on this forum question women's preference for something as inconsequential as height, when the only value it confers is masculinity, and masculinity is largely undefined? If you're a parent raising a son, how do you now teach him to "be a man"? Or is the concept to "be a man" outdated? One thing I can tell you that as a man, that the pressure to be masculine, strong, and unemotional is as potent as ever. Yet the role of men has changed. Is it any wonder that some men rail against the modern era, as what they're really afraid of is that they are no longer worth much. And most importantly they're afraid that they're no longer worthy of a woman's love. And that is very scary indeed. 5
xxoo Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 I really don't think any of the anti-feminism, pro 50s style posters have provided a shred of evidence/studies/facts, to support the assertion that society and children are better off with traditional marriages. That being said, I do think that the role of a man is a forgotten concept in the post-feminism era, and that in my mind is the thing that a lot of men are struggling with. What does it now mean to be a man? Where girls can do anything and be anything, the same does not seem to hold true for boys. What is the male equivalent of a tomboy? Can a boy grow up wanting to be a stay at home dad as a life goal? Has the world opened up for men in the same way it has for women post-feminism? What does masculinity even mean these days? Women certainly are still attracted to traditional masculine traits, yet they have no interest in a traditional life. Is it any wonder that many men on this forum question women's preference for something as inconsequential as height, when the only value it confers is masculinity, and masculinity is largely undefined? If you're a parent raising a son, how do you now teach him to "be a man"? Or is the concept to "be a man" outdated? One thing I can tell you that as a man, that the pressure to be masculine, strong, and unemotional is as potent as ever. Yet the role of men has changed. Is it any wonder that some men rail against the modern era, as what they're really afraid of is that they are no longer worth much. And most importantly they're afraid that they're no longer worthy of a woman's love. And that is very scary indeed. Good post, weezy. Being a "man" and being a "woman" may not be so far apart. It's being a responsible, capable, confident adult. Often, when women are looking for a man, they are looking for someone who sets himself apart from the boys. Masculinity and gendered behavior is still quite attractive in flirting, dating, personal treatment, and the bedroom. But outside that romantic behavior, our roles as providers and caretakers of the children are quite similar. I do love the physical strength of a man, which is a biological thing. And I love the sexuality of a man, for sure. That ever-constant hum of sexual energy that just never seems to quit even if the house is burning down--love that! 1
Got it Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 It's ironic that this thread has become about couples who modeled after 50s style marriage and it turned out to be a financial disaster. Modern marriage with two income earners is much safer for both men and women. xxoo - I think you are my new LS crush. I completely agree and was thinking the same thing. If these aren't the biggest arguments against 50's style marriages I don't know what is! 3
Got it Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 I'd even go so far as to say they need to earn comparable amounts. If the person doesn't make as much as you, don't marry them. Or go after sugar mommas and you can be the trophy husband. My husband calls me "sugar momma in training". 2
Got it Posted May 28, 2015 Posted May 28, 2015 Very few people earn what I earn, and I'm pretty damn picky when it comes to female companionship nowadays. Multiply one small number by another small number and you get a really small chance. It could happen, but I'm not holding my breath. it boils down to options, and having kids is looking less and less appealing to me, so why would I even get married? Given that, why not just date as I like? I have no need for marriage. It brings me nothing positive. Which is a common male theme. When was the last time you saw a 40 year old guy come here and cry that his GF wouldn't marry him? So rarely we might as well say never. Because most guys don't come on internet relationship boards. And even few come on to complain. So statistically I would say very low. Well don't live together then either, that tricky common law laws will get you as well! And child support is not limited to marriage. Just get a sugar baby and follow Robert Z; he seems quite happy. 2
Recommended Posts