Should alimony be abolished?

[mhsjax]

Why would having a larger family entitle you not to work? I understand that child are for 4 children is costly, but you took on that responsibility when you decided to have a large family.

If you need money, you need to work.

Moms who work provide the same care as moms who don't. We take care of sick kids, pick them up at school, attend after school activities, cook, clean etc.

Never understood the statement that someone else is raising the kids while parents work.

You have to make a lot of money to be able to pay for 4 kids in day care.

Also yes moms who work do all of this, but SAHM do it at least 40 hours a week more than working moms. It is what it is.

I do feel that kids in daycare are being raised in part by someone else, especially when young. They get dropped of at 7:00 don't get picked up until 6:00. Early bed time. Sorry but time dictates that the daycare spends way more time than the parent does.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

Yes, I currently pay child are for 2 children.

I agree it would be expensive. My comment was that deciding to have a large family does not negate the need for people to work.

When someone decides to have children they do so knowing they will be expensive. If at any time living circumstances change, the reasoning of, I have kids, I can't work is no longer acceptable.

As a person who worked all her life while raising two children, I think your attitude. . .

Well, I always felt I had TWO full time jobs. And would never have said that my neighbors who had the opportunity to stay home with their children weren't "working".

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

 

[mefordis]

If you stop your career to raise your family until the kids are 18 years old, you have not put into social security, nor a 401k. You have missed out on all of that time to build a career. I believe lifetime alimony might make sense in this situation.

 

[Planogirl]

I agree with those who said that the length of time alimony is paid depends on the situation. I can't see there ever be any blanket rules if the system is overhauled and done so in a fair way.

I keep on thinking about older women who are suddenly divorced and have never worked. It can be rough if not impossible for many of those older individuals to start over.

 

[NaLisa]

Sorry to see this spin into a SAHM vs. working mom debate. I've done both and know they each present their own advantages and disadvantages, benefits and challenges.

When both spouses agree that one will give up a career and earning money to stay home with the children for however many years or be a homemaker for the duration of the marriage, but then there is a divorce, the SAH parent/spouse should receive alimony and a share of retirement and other financial benefits earned during the marriage. I do not believe in lifetime alimony except in cases where a spouse is incapacitated or is realistically too old to embark on a new career.

 

[AntePrincess]

Sorry to see this spin into a SAHM vs. working mom debate. I've done both and know they each present their own advantages and disadvantages, benefits and challenges.

Agreed.

Besides, unless the divorce is between a working Mom and a SAHM, I'm not sure that the Mommy Wars apply to the question of alimony. If you want to be sure you've covered your bases, have it written up legally. So long as the SAHP has left work to stay home with the support of their partner, it isn't a question of feeling an 'entitlement not to work.'

 

[Northstar]

but I think that's a life style choice you make and when you make it, it should be with the full realization that you are handing over your earning potential to some one else.
In no way saying this is a wrong choice, just that I do think it's a bit "naive: to come back and say "well I gave up XYZ" for my spouse and lost this earning potential, unless the spouse put a gun to some ones head, you gave that up with full consent and in no way should you expect after staying out of the workforce for 15 years to be capable of having the same earning potential.

I understand what you're saying here, but consider it from the other side... the spouse who stays in the workforce should understand that, when the two of them made the choice for one to stay home and one to work, the working spouse also made a choice.... to commit some of his/her future earning potential to supporting the nonworking spouse, in order to get the benefits of having a stay-at-home partner keeping the home fires burning.

Nobody put a gun to the working spouse's head, either. He/she should know that his/her spouse won't have the same earning potential after staying out of the workforce for 15 years.

But I do agree that lifetime alimony should be a rare thing. I'm actually surprised to hear that it's still awarded fairly often in some parts of the U.S.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

If you stop your career to raise your family until the kids are 18 years old, you have not put into social security, nor a 401k. You have missed out on all of that time to build a career. I believe lifetime alimony might make sense in this situation.

But consider this: if you are married mire than 10 years, you are entitled to collect Social Security benefits on a forner spouse's record. You are also entitled to a portion of the value of your ex's pension.

Consider this as well: what if you married at 20, had your first and only child at 21? You would be 39 when that child turned 18. Plenty of time to start a career and contribute to a 401k.

Which is why there shoukd not be hard and fast rukes.

Sent from my SCH-I800 using DISBoards

 

[TinkerBelled]

I understand what you're saying here, but consider it from the other side... the spouse who stays in the workforce should understand that, when the two of them made the choice for one to stay home and one to work, the working spouse also made a choice.... to commit some of his/her future earning potential to supporting the nonworking spouse, in order to get the benefits of having a stay-at-home partner keeping the home fires burning.

Nobody put a gun to the working spouse's head, either. He/she should know that his/her spouse won't have the same earning potential after staying out of the workforce for 15 years.

I think this is a good point rarely made. I'm not sure why the dangers of a joint decision are incumbent solely upon the person who doesn't work; surely a decision made together should have equal repercussions.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

I think this is a good point rarely made. I'm not sure why the dangers of a joint decision are incumbent solely upon the person who doesn't work; surely a decision made together should have equal repercussions.

Bingo.

Joint decision, both received benefits from the arrangement. Both should deal with the consequences.

 

[ZuZugal]

I understand what you're saying here, but consider it from the other side... the spouse who stays in the workforce should understand that, when the two of them made the choice for one to stay home and one to work, the working spouse also made a choice.... to commit some of his/her future earning potential to supporting the nonworking spouse, in order to get the benefits of having a stay-at-home partner keeping the home fires burning.

Nobody put a gun to the working spouse's head, either. He/she should know that his/her spouse won't have the same earning potential after staying out of the workforce for 15 years.

But I do agree that lifetime alimony should be a rare thing. I'm actually surprised to hear that it's still awarded fairly often in some parts of the U.S.

Absolutely true.

I worked until the day before our first child was born. We have 3 kids. Our joint decision was for me to stay home. During that time I have always had part-time work when the kids have been in school. But I need summers off. My 2 oldest played tournament golf/baseball every summer working towards potential college scholarships (which they have both received.)

So in the end we gave up my earning potential so I could be available to them all summer long (also spring/fall when needed) for tournaments and college visits/camps pertaining to their sport. We all know the price of college tuition these days. Not only have they gotten tuition paid but they have made many contacts in their respective sports as they both hope to coach at the high school/college level someday.

 

[wiigirl]

Bingo.

Joint decision, both received benefits from the arrangement. Both should deal with the consequences.

Totally agree...

 

[disykat]

No, alimony should not be abolished. I'm glad someone is finally discussing the other side of this.

When a couple decides to be a one income family, that decision affects BOTH of them, not just the person staying home. The wage earner shouldn't be able to build their career and then decide to dump the non-wage earner and abandon them financially when it suits them.

I never understand why some people seem so intent on taking away choices from people. (ie - we're going to make it impossible to stay home with kids because we don't think anyone should make that choice) Expecting all families to function the same way seems like a giant step backwards to me.

I think there will come a point when there has to be a legal "pre-SAHP" agreement to prevent this kind of nonsense.

 

[NaLisa]

No, alimony should not be abolished.

When a couple decides to be a one income family, that decision affects BOTH of them, not just the person staying home. The wage earner shouldn't be able to build their career and then decide to dump the non-wage earner and abandon them financially when it suits them.

I never understand why some people seem so intent on taking away choices from people. (ie - we're going to make it impossible to stay home with kids because we don't think anyone should make that choice) Expecting all families to function the same way seems like a giant step backwards to me.

I think there will come a point when there has to be a legal "pre-SAHP" agreement to prevent this kind of nonsense.

 

[HeatherFeather]

My understanding was that this bill would not end alimony in Florida but end "permanent" alimony and put more restrictions on amounts and length of alimony awards. Is this incorrect?

 

[PatsMom]

My DH pays "permanent" alimony. When he retired, we found that my income was included in the calculations of what the court considered we could afford to pay. His ex chose to stay home, mostly. She worked off and on when she was in the mood. It was her choice to stay home, no joint decision.

She has been getting alimony for almost 25 years now. Certainly plenty of time to "get on her feet". But you can't bring it up. I am now in a position of having stage 4 cancer and I am working partly to pay alimony and partly to support my step daughter. My husband is in very poor health so his returning to work is out of the question.

Obvsiously I believe permanent alimony should be abolished. No one should be able to sit home on their butt and blow though a significant divorce settlement, and leech off an ex husband. My husband wishes he had a better lawyer!

 

[NaLisa]

My DH pays "permanent" alimony. When he retired, we found that my income was included in the calculations of what the court considered we could afford to pay. His ex chose to stay home, mostly. She worked off and on when she was in the mood. It was her choice to stay home, no joint decision.

She has been getting alimony for almost 25 years now. Certainly plenty of time to "get on her feet". But you can't bring it up. I am now in a position of having stage 4 cancer and I am working partly to pay alimony and partly to support my step daughter. My husband is in very poor health so his returning to work is out of the question.

Obvsiously I believe permanent alimony should be abolished. No one should be able to sit home on their butt and blow though a significant divorce settlement, and leech off an ex husband. My husband wishes he had a better lawyer!

Can't he go to court to ask for a change in the agreement due to new circumstances?

 

[PatsMom]

Can't he go to court to ask for a change in the agreement due to new circumstances?

He did - the new circumstances are that I make quite a bit of money and they are inclined to increase her alimony since inflation has eroded the value. Fortunately the judge had a sane moment and didn't do that. But I basically have to quit working too before they will reconsider. And then they will look at our savings and may direct that we have to pay from savings or transfer a lump sum to make sure that she gets her money.

She had a good lawyer! And she is working now. And over 65 so drawing social security.

 

[castleview]

My understanding was that this bill would not end alimony in Florida but end "permanent" alimony and put more restrictions on amounts and length of alimony awards. Is this incorrect?

I think so. But I think what drove the governor's veto was the word "retro". While some cases certainly can be looked at, some were decided long ago based on possibly outdated tactics. Example: couples owns business, one spouse wants to keep it but doesn't have cash to buy out so chooses lifetime alimony instead.

Either way, I think it's ridiculous that the ex's new wife factors into first wive's alimony.

 

[Lorelei Lee]

http://www.forbes.com/sites/jefflan...-to-know-about-alimony-reform/?ss=forbeswoman

Not liking the Florida proposal at all.