Should alimony be abolished?

[mnrose]

I think it completely depends on the situation, but there are definitely cases where I think lifetime alimony is appropriate. For example, long marriage (20+ years) where one spouse was the "home maker" and principal child raiser (note that this could be a person of either sex....not just women). Now, the couple is in their late 40's or early 50's, and "homemaker" spouse hasn't worked in 20 years, while working spouse has over time, received raises and promotions, keeping the family financially secure. If the couple decides to divorce at this point, it would be extremely difficult, if not impossible for a person out of the work force for 20+ years to get any sort of job other than the most basic, and at an extemely low wage. Should we toss non-working spouse into poverty? No. The only fair thing to do is to require alimony for quite a period of time, if not "lifetime."

OTOH, it would be completely unfair to award anything other than "temporary" support to a non-working spouse who is younger (in their 20's or 30's). At that age, it is totally possible to get a reasonable working position and create their own satisfactory standard of living.

There is no simple solution. It is all quite case specific, IMO.

 

[mhsjax]

I don't get this, kids grow up, eventually you won't have to run baths for them anymore. Some even get their licenses and drive themselves around! No plans ever to work?

But why do you care? REally what concern is it of your when and if this poster ever goes back to work. As you said to my post. WOW.

 

[aprilgail2]

OTOH, it would be completely unfair to award anything other than "temporary" support to a non-working spouse who is younger (in their 20's or 30's). At that age, it is totally possible to get a reasonable working position and create their own satisfactory standard of living.

There is no simple solution. It is all quite case specific, IMO.

If they are 40 or 50 they can still bring in some income even if its being a walmart greeter or flipping burgers- I still don't think they should have a free ride not working and living off someone elses hard earned money.

 

[Colleen27]

If they are 40 or 50 they can still bring in some income even if its being a walmart greeter or flipping burgers- I still don't think they should have a free ride not working and living off someone elses hard earned money.

So what you're saying is that the working parent should have no lasting responsibility for the choice to have the other parent stay home, while the SAHP should accept a poverty level existence for the rest of his/her life as consequence for that choice?

 

[Lorelei Lee]

But why do you care? REally what concern is it of your when and if this poster ever goes back to work. As you said to my post. WOW.

Agreed.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

 

[Lorelei Lee]

So what you're saying is that the working parent should have no lasting responsibility for the choice to have the other parent stay home, while the SAHP should accept a poverty level existence for the rest of his/her life as consequence for that choice?

Yeah that's what she's saying.

Wonder what she'd say about another rule we have here in NY.

If you earn a degree while married -- say, an MD, JD or MBA -- your degree is considered a marital asset. It is assumed that your spouse provided you with support which allowed you to earn the degree and therefore increase your earning capacity.

There was a case -- wife quit college and got a job so that husband could go to medical school. As soon as he graduated and finished his internship etc., and was in a pisition to start earning decent money, he decided he wanted a divorce.

She was self supporting, there was no money in the bank and they didn't have kids, but the courts just didn't think it was fair that he walk away without giving her something.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

 

[NaLisa]

DH and I both made the decision for me to take time off career. If anything, he was the one who felt more strongly. I know the salary schedule at my job, I know the retirement plan. I make 20K less each year than I would if I'd never taken time off. The hit I will take on my retirement will be very significant.

I think it's ridiculous that some people think I alone should take the financial hit if we were to divorce.

Honestly? I think it'd make DH look very bad in the eyes of our children if he, who makes significantly more than me anyway, didn't want to make sure I was financially secure.

I don't think alimony is always about some horrible person trying to bilk their ex out of money.

Obviously there are times when alimony can be unfair, that doesn't mean it's without merit in other situations. I really think things like alimony, custody, etc. should be on a case by case basis.

Great post.

 

[aprilgail2]

So what you're saying is that the working parent should have no lasting responsibility for the choice to have the other parent stay home, while the SAHP should accept a poverty level existence for the rest of his/her life as consequence for that choice?

I think that in order to get any alimony that the person that is getting it should not be sitting home while the other works--if one person has to pay the other alimony than the person getting it should at least have to go out and bring in some of their own income and not expect to live totally off the money of someone else.

 

[disykat]

If they are 40 or 50 they can still bring in some income even if its being a walmart greeter or flipping burgers- I still don't think they should have a free ride not working and living off someone elses hard earned money.

I think that in order to get any alimony that the person that is getting it should not be sitting home while the other works--if one person has to pay the other alimony than the person getting it should at least have to go out and bring in some of their own income and not expect to live totally off the money of someone else.

I'm not sure where you're getting the idea alimony is meant to be 100% of someone's income. That would only be the case if someone was married for a very long time to someone quite well off.

People take the extreme cases and make rash decisions based on those that hurt all the normal people.

 

[BeachGirlFLA]

In light of the current anti-alimony bill being vetoed in Florida, it got me thinking. I didn't even know alimony still existed as few people I knew fought for it including my own mother who has been divorced well over 25 years. I guess I just assumed it was either a big lump sum or a temporary fix. I had no idea former spouses (man and women) were going broke over it and that second wives incomes are taken into account.

Curious what others thought.

My thoughts: there are certain circumstances where I can see alimony being in the picture for a while, but lifetime alimony sounds suspicious especially if the marriage was fairly short. I understand the difficulties women face getting back into the job market, but don't understand why alimony should be paid to anyone who has been divorced for decades.

The only way I think second wives' incomes should be taken into consideration (since they're not for child support as far as I know) are if the husband committed adultery with the second wife. Then I'm all for sticking it to both the ex-husband and the second wife
Other than certain circumstances (abuse and adultery come to mind), I don't think alimony should exist.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I think that in order to get any alimony that the person that is getting it should not be sitting home while the other works--if one person has to pay the other alimony than the person getting it should at least have to go out and bring in some of their own income and not expect to live totally off the money of someone else.

So what if they were married 50 years, she never worked, he wants a divorce so he can marry a trophy wife . . . What then?

So what if she's ill with breast cancer, going through radiation and chemo? Or she was in a car accident and has become disabled?

This is why I don't like hard and fast rules.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

 

[Lorelei Lee]

If they are 40 or 50 they can still bring in some income even if its being a walmart greeter or flipping burgers- I still don't think they should have a free ride not working and living off someone elses hard earned money.

Money that the hard working spouse wouldn't have if not for the nonworking spouse's efforts at home.

You seem to think that the spouse who doesn't have a salaried position isn't "working" or making a contribution to the family's economic well being.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

 

[AntePrincess]

The only way I think second wives' incomes should be taken into consideration (since they're not for child support as far as I know) are if the husband committed adultery with the second wife. Then I'm all for sticking it to both the ex-husband and the second wife
Other than certain circumstances (abuse and adultery come to mind), I don't think alimony should exist.

I think in most states that's called 'alienation of affections' and it does mean you can sue the other man/woman for damages. It comes from contract law, when one company 'seduces' someone out of a contract with another company. I wonder if they started including second wives' incomes when the husband quit working in an effort to end alimony payments? There was a case of that in the local news recently, the ex husband was jailed in contempt of court and refused to make bail, to work, or essentially do anything he was so determined not to pay alimony, while the new girlfriend (refused to marry again) supported him. The ex wife was on disability, though he claimed she was faking it and capable of working. The whole thing was a mess, there must be a better way.

 

[Laura66]

I wasn't aware - as a stay at home mom - that I'm sitting around all day!

I have quite a few "friends" that go out of their way to point that out to me or wonder why I don't work outside the home! These same "friends" ( I want to point that I have very good working friends) have no problem turning around and asking me to drive their kids to after school or summer activities - because you know - they work and what else do I have to do all day!

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I think in most states that's called 'alienation of affections' and it does mean you can sue the other man/woman for damages. It comes from contract law, when one company 'seduces' someone out of a contract with another company. I wonder if they started including second wives' incomes when the husband quit working in an effort to end alimony payments? There was a case of that in the local news recently, the ex husband was jailed in contempt of court and refused to make bail, to work, or essentially do anything he was so determined not to pay alimony, while the new girlfriend (refused to marry again) supported him. The ex wife was on disability, though he claimed she was faking it and capable of working. The whole thing was a mess, there must be a better way.

I'll have to look it up but I believe most jurisdictions have abolished "heart balm" claims such as alienation of affection.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

 

[Lorelei Lee]

And I am right. Only 8 states recognize heart balm torts. Alienation of affection is a heart balm tort and therefore not recognized in most jurisdictions.

As I said earlier, the trend in law is for the divorce court in most jurisdictions to make economic decisions without regard to "fault". It doesn't matter who cheated. It doesn't matter which spouse left the other. Most states have "no fault" divorce. And financial affairs are not tied to whose fault it was.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

 

[HelenePA]

I wasn't aware - as a stay at home mom - that I'm sitting around all day!

I have quite a few "friends" that go out of their way to point that out to me or wonder why I don't work outside the home! These same "friends" ( I want to point that I have very good working friends) have no problem turning around and asking me to drive their kids to after school or summer activities - because you know - they work and what else do I have to do all day!

Do you get asked to baby sit a lot? because I do!! All the moms have my phone number and since I'm home anyway why shouldn't mind, right?

 

[agavegirl1]

The only way I think second wives' incomes should be taken into consideration (since they're not for child support as far as I know) are if the husband committed adultery with the second wife. Then I'm all for sticking it to both the ex-husband and the second wife
Other than certain circumstances (abuse and adultery come to mind), I don't think alimony should exist.

Not in a "no-fault" state. No Fault means exactly that and despite being stomped on, lied to, cheated on and treated like dirt"...my alimony is temporary until I can get back on my feet and get a job like I used to have BEFORE I married my ex-husband. I was awarded 6 years. Yup, right before the economy went into a nose-dive. I am still unemployed. ExH is living in the house we bought together with his new wife (my friend he cheated with) and I am renting a townhouse 100 miles away. PS...I was married 13 years and at ExH's insistance, quit to work for him for nothing.
Amazing how a gap of 9 years in your employment history (I ran ExH's business for no pay) can affect your resume' and employability...(is that a word?)

If alimony didn't exist, I'd be living with my adult children in the guest room.

 

[dogluva]

But why do you care? REally what concern is it of your when and if this poster ever goes back to work. As you said to my post. WOW.

Oh yes, I care so much. I was asking why never since running a bath is not something you would do for a grown child. Kids grow up so those tasks are not a reason to stay home. Wow- little touchy?

 

[Laura66]

Oh yes, I care so much. I was asking why never since running a bath is not something you would do for a grown child. Kids grow up so those tasks are not a reason to stay home. Wow- little touchy?

Debating with you on this subject is pointless - you have no idea - and you don't want to understand - just how much non working spouses can contribute to a marriage.

These snarky comments prove my point.