What do you think? Time to change Alimony laws.

[senseamp]

I think you're making big assumptions about how alimony actually works. Alimony applies to keep the wife at the same standard of living even after the divorce. If you assume she already has a job, then she would not be able to simply quit it after the divorce and expect her husband to make up that income. If she earned 50% of the household income, she's not going to get alimony. Now if she were a teacher and her husband was a surgeon, yes, she's going to get money. I don't have a problem with that.

Since when are you the one to suggest we need to always go with the free market solution? Traditionally, the economic aspect of marriage was a key component. There are still traditional marriages out there. To the extent one is not in a traditional marriage, one probably shouldn't be too concerned about alimony because the spouses will be making similar incomes. And if you're really not traditional, you don't get married at all or you get a prenup.

And as we move into the future there are going to be a fair amount of stay-at-home dads who will qualify for alimony. I don't have a problem with that.

The incentive is still to contribute less and take more during the marriage, because by contributing more and taking less, you are signing up to do this in perpetuity in case of a divorce. And by contributing less and taking more, you are entitled to take more in perpetuity. Essentially you are being punished for accepting more financial responsibility and rewarded for ducking it. I am writing a prenup, you better believe it, no way in hell I would get married without one, mainly because of alimony provisions, and especially the discretion it leaves to judges. Note that it doesn't mean I am completely against alimony. There should be some support for a transition period so that neither spouse constantly worries about being dumped and left on the street without time to readjust. But it should not be an entitlement to a certain lifestyle for life just because you had it for a few years in marriage.

 

[Infohawk]

The incentive is still to contribute less and take more during the marriage, because by contributing more and taking less, you are signing up to do this in perpetuity in case of a divorce. And by contributing less and taking more, you are entitled to take more in perpetuity. Essentially you are being punished for accepting more financial responsibility and rewarded for ducking it. I am writing a prenup, you better believe it, no way in hell I would get married without one, mainly because of alimony provisions, and especially the discretion it leaves to judges. Note that it doesn't mean I am completely against alimony.

Again, funny that someone who so often argues for progressive goals thinks this way. Do you think the mere presence of welfare means people want to live on the dole and avoid making money? I don't. I think normal healthy people try to work to make a reasonable salary if they can. Similarly, I just can't imagine any actual marriages that work the way you think they do. When the woman is a socialite or stay at home mom, the men know what they're getting into. Otherwise, if you are recently married and you see your wife slacking in many states you would simply be able to divorce her without alimony payments being triggered. Again, I just don't think that's a very realistic scenario.

There should be some support for a transition period so that neither spouse constantly worries about being dumped and left on the street without time to readjust. But it should not be an entitlement to a certain lifestyle for life just because you had it for a few years in marriage.

For the most part you're arguing against non-existent or historical laws. Only 15% of all divorces trigger alimony payments. Not all alimony is permanent. The age of the spouses, the duration of the marriage and earning capacity ARE taken into consideration. Does that upset you?

 

[senseamp]

Again, funny that someone who so often argues for progressive goals thinks this way. Do you think the mere presence of welfare means people want to live on the dole and avoid making money? I don't. I think normal healthy people try to work to make a reasonable salary if they can.

Welfare supports a minimum standard of living. You don't get to go to a welfare office and say, see, before I lost my job, I was accustomed to this level of income, therefore you should maintain it for me now. You would get laughed out of the building. I am OK with spousal support being a temporary safety net like welfare. Enough time and money to sustain yourself and get education and move on with your life.
With alimony, you are getting paid what you were accustomed to, and if you were a housewife, that is enough to make work optional.

Similarly, I just can't imagine any actual marriages that work the way you think they do. When the woman is a socialite or stay at home mom, the men know what they're getting into. Otherwise, if you are recently married and you see your wife slacking in many states you would simply be able to divorce her without alimony payments being triggered. Again, I just don't think that's a very realistic scenario.
For the most part you're arguing against non-existent or historical laws. Only 15% of all divorces trigger alimony payments. Not all alimony is permanent. The age of the spouses, the duration of the marriage and earning capacity ARE taken into consideration. Does that upset you?

You are contradicting yourself. Men cannot know what they are getting into, because that is decided by the judge, taking the factors you mentioned inconsideration. And it's decided not when they get into marriage, but when they get out of it.

 

[Infohawk]

Welfare supports a minimum standard of living. You don't get to go to a welfare office and say, see, before I lost my job, I was accustomed to this level of income, therefore you should maintain it for me now. You would get laughed out of the building. I am OK with spousal support being a temporary safety net like welfare. Enough time and money to sustain yourself and get education and move on with your life.

What are you talking about? Unemployment DOES take into consideration how much you made.

If you're married for 40 years and you raised the kids and your husband wants to divorce you at 60, you're entitled to MORE than a temporary safety net. So you can't say permanent alimony is never the right answer.

You are contradicting yourself. Men cannot know what they are getting into, because that is decided by the judge, taking the factors you mentioned inconsideration. And it's decided not when they get into marriage, but when they get out of it.

Where do you think I'm contradicting myself? You're really grasping for straws here. There's no reason you can't talk to a lawyer in your state before you get married to know your rights and of course everyone knows you can get a pre-nup. (Although just like in any other business they might try to get you to have a prenup so they can make more money [pre-nups which by the way if too unfair can simply be ignored by the court].)

The bottom line is that you and others in this thread have a totally warped view of what current alimony laws are like. The laws in most states are more nuanced and fair than "beyotch gets all my money and gets to quit her job."

 

[the DRIZZLE]

If you're married for 40 years and you raised the kids and your husband wants to divorce you at 60, you're entitled to MORE than a temporary safety net. So you can't say permanent alimony is never the right answer.

No you should get the SS spousal benefit. The bottom line is if you are of working age you can work, and if you of retirement age you get share of the assets and SS benefits. If I want to keep working until 70 why should my already retired divorcee get extra money?

 

[Infohawk]

No you should get the SS spousal benefit. The bottom line is if you are of working age you can work, and if you of retirement age you get share of the assets and SS benefits. If I want to keep working until 70 why should my already retired divorcee get extra money?

Senseamp suggested that alimony only be temporary. There are times when it's clearly fair that the woman get alimony for the rest of her life.

I'm not really sure what you're getting at with the SS spousal benefit thing. First of all the government's job is not to pay for ex-wives and possible a new wife's benefits. If you're saying that ex-wives should only get the bare minimum to survive that seems pretty silly in certain situations. If you're a CEO who married a Stepford wife in the 60s, had her raise your children in a nice upper-class neighborhood, it's pretty ridiculous that you can simply ask for a no-fault divorce and expect her to live in a mobile home off of SS spousal benefit. Now if you go on to start a new company after the divorce and you become as rich as Bill Gates, guess what? That's not going to be part of the alimony. Not sure what you're angry about.

 

[senseamp]

What are you talking about? Unemployment DOES take into consideration how much you made.

It is capped in duration and does not maintain your standard of living when employed

If you're married for 40 years and you raised the kids and your husband wants to divorce you at 60, you're entitled to MORE than a temporary safety net. So you can't say permanent alimony is never the right answer.

Why is the wife entitled to more? Maybe after working for 40 years to support the wife, the husband feels entitled to having her support him while he relaxes and enjoys himself.

Where do you think I'm contradicting myself? You're really grasping for straws here. There's no reason you can't talk to a lawyer in your state before you get married to know your rights and of course everyone knows you can get a pre-nup. (Although just like in any other business they might try to get you to have a prenup so they can make more money [pre-nups which by the way if too unfair can simply be ignored by the court].)

The bottom line is that you and others in this thread have a totally warped view of what current alimony laws are like. The laws in most states are more nuanced and fair than "beyotch gets all my money and gets to quit her job."

So the only way you know what you are getting into is by having a prenup that holds up. If you leave it up to state laws, which is subject of this discussion, it's up to the judge when you get divorced, and if you get a lawyer before marriage, that's what he'll tell you. You are trying to have it both ways, saying, see you know what you are getting into, and at the same time saying, see the judge will decide what's appropriate, it's not automatic.

 

[Infohawk]

It is capped in duration and does not maintain your standard of living when employed

The fact that it's capped doesn't change the fact that it does take into account how much you made. This is even more true in European countries, which have policies that you seem to defend. Again, it's really interesting how you seem to be using conservative arguments in the specific instance of marriage. (And the cap is probably lower than it should be in this economy because of budget problems.)

Why is the wife entitled to more? Maybe after working for 40 years to support the wife, the husband feels entitled to having her support him while he relaxes and enjoys himself.

You really think a housewife who's 60 years old is going to make start making money after never having worked? Isn't it more realistic to think that they have some sort of retirement? Please give me even a hypothetical situation in which this would be anywhere near realistic.

So the only way you know what you are getting into is by having a prenup that holds up. If you leave it up to state laws, which is subject of this discussion, it's up to the judge when you get divorced, and if you get a lawyer before marriage, that's what he'll tell you. You are trying to have it both ways, saying, see you know what you are getting into, and at the same time saying, see the judge will decide what's appropriate, it's not automatic.

I'm not trying to have it both ways. I'm saying that state-by-state there is a reasonably well understood limit of fairness (there is a certain amount of ambiguity in most parts of our legal system) that is embodied in the alimony laws and in the laws that rule which pre-nups are enforceable. The bottom line is that there is no way you're going to be able to marry someone,live in a long traditional marriage where she takes care of the family, and then get a divorce and not have to pay any alimony (unless the wife has other sources of money). That's how it should because no woman would have ever gotten married, sacrificed her own career and education knowing that she could be completely abandoned and destitute while her husband lives at a higher standard of living.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Alimony should be abolished. Especially since we now have no fault divorce - if you willingly chose to leave your marriage "just because," you should not be entitled to any alimony.

So they guy walks out just because he can get a new hotty on the side

The wife has 1-2 children now to raise and she does not get any support for herself.

Single parents do not have it easy - for many, child support does not cover 100% of the child's needs

 

[Ninjahedge]

Alimony should not be abolished, it should be balanced.

It is no longer the same situation it was 20, 30, 50 years ago where a woman had a much harder time getting the same pay and was also expected to be a stay-at-home caregiver.

We have situations now where the MALE should be given Alimony due to the monetary divide (or the commitment of funds to a common investment, like a house).

The numbers need to be revisited and capped. A woman does not deserve a percentage of a mans assets that she did not have when they got married and did not contribute to during the marriage. They do not deserve to be dumped out on the street either.

In the case of a star like Tiger, the woman should have gotten a stipend and a settlement payment. (Say $1M and $100K/yr for the next X years). That other chick? 1 house, yes HOUSE. Not a mansion, but not a 1000sf bungalow in Camden NJ. Something that can give her a bit of privacy, but not "a fair share" of what was never really hers.

Our system is skewed in that it heavily favors the women, but at the same time it is also difficult to get the money from guys that really ARE responsible for it. The net result, Good men and women get the brunt of the abuses and ill-fitting laws and the assholes on both sides make off with the best deals.

 

[Ninjahedge]

BTW EK, Alimony is different than child support.

I agree with what you are saying, but I was careful not to conflate the two myself when posting about this!

 

[airdata]

Because they didn't get any while they were married either.

: D

 

[EndGame]

Works both ways.....rarely perhaps but, it does.

A good friend of my brother worked in construction locally for years. He married shortly out of high school and supported his then wife through many years of school and with raising their 2 kids. She finally graduated and got a job as a CPA for Boeing in St. Louis in 1997. She made considerabley more than him immeadiately and kept climbing the ladder with Boeing.

In 2005, he got a "tip" from one of her co-workers and found out she had a "friend" that accompanied her on many of her trips and worked with her at Boeing in St. Louis. He was also married. Both couples split up and eventually divorced in 2006. My brothers friend got full custody of both kids, their house, child support and alimony.

 

[EagleKeeper]

BTW EK, Alimony is different than child support.

I agree with what you are saying, but I was careful not to conflate the two myself when posting about this!

Two seperate items.
Alimony is for the spouse
Child support is for the children

I have seen both sides happen with my children and their spouse.

 

[Munky]

So they guy walks out just because he can get a new hotty on the side

The wife has 1-2 children now to raise and she does not get any support for herself.

Single parents do not have it easy - for many, child support does not cover 100% of the child's needs

Is she incapable to get a job and support herself? Did her ex-husband force her at gunpoint to stay home instead of working? I don't buy the whole sympathy card, and if she's incapable of supporting the child and herself, then the husband should have more custody of the kids in addition to paying child support. Also, many single moms neglect their kids' needs while squandering child support money on themselves.

With that said, if it was the husband who walked out, he should provide some kind of support to his ex for a limited time. If the wife walked because she was "bored" she shouldn't be entitled to anything.

 

[Ninjahedge]

It's never that easy.

If you start wording the law like that you will get fights about how each person "felt" in the relationship and how that weighs against the settlement.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Is she incapable to get a job and support herself? Most are able to support themselves. With a child it may be difficult without assistance.

Did her ex-husband force her at gunpoint to stay home instead of working?
Unless one is a professional, child care for infants/toddlers can be more expensive that what one earns. Infant childcare can run $300/wk easily.
I don't buy the whole sympathy card, and if she's incapable of supporting the child and herself, then the husband should have more custody of the kids in addition to paying child support.
No argument there - the child should always be exposed to both parents
Also, many single moms neglect their kids' needs while squandering child support money on themselves. Flawed misconception - usually single mom with no potential

With that said, if it was the husband who walked out, he should provide some kind of support to his ex for a limited time. If the wife walked because she was "bored" she shouldn't be entitled to anything.

It should not be a husband/wife but the one that has the responsibilty of taking care of the child gets the child support and alimony if taking care of the child means that one can not support both at the same time.

 

[Blintok]

Marriage laws are insane. Anyone watch John Cleese's Alimony Tour?

Two of my uncles got divorced. Not only did their ex-wives get half their assets (plus the house), but they got alimony. One of my (ex?) aunts is on lifetime alimony I believe. My uncles ended up living in apartments. Who knows how much they shelled out for divorce lawyers.

AnyMAN thinking about getting married should think rationally about the potential consequences of doing so. Getting married is bad enough, but once you have kids it is all over if there is a divorce. The ex-wife will get half the assets, the house, the kids, child support and alimony. The ex-husband gets to live paycheck to paycheck in an apartment as he shells out hundreds of dollars an hour for a divorce attorney just to secure visitation.

fixed for you. and wimmens say men are afraid of commitment. no shit sherloc