Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Did you consult an attorney? You got screwed. Maybe you can see if you can do some damage control with another attorney (if you can afford it)
The damage is irreversibly done. I'm partially responsible for how things turned out. Tried to do the "right" thing by ensuring the mother of my children would not be overly hurt/damaged by divorce. In the process, I failed to consider my well-being. Another great mistake was counting on her so-called "Christian" principles which she completely threw out the window - apparently - after being told how much she stood to gain from her trusting ex-husband.
seems upside down and backwards. How can you not tax income? The reason it was tax deductible is that it was money you never actually had, and the reason that the person receiving it was taxed it because it was income they actually did get.
Why in the world would alimony be tax deductible? Or receiving alimony be taxed?
Who dreams this nonsense up? Never mind, duh. The lawyer lobby.
No, it makes perfect sense. Its income you never actually got, since you were FORCED to pay it to someone else by a court, and in that sense, its a government taking. Which shouldn't be included as income.
On the recipient side, its INCOME, so of course if income tax is legitimate, then it SHOULD be taxed. It is income and worst of all - unearned. It isn't business income. Nor is it a distribution from a trust, and money already in the possession or control of the perrson receiving it. It has cost basis of zero.
Quote:
Originally Posted by redwood66
^This is my question. The alimony payer likely pays tax on their income before the alimony receiver receives it and then the receiver must pay tax on it again? I have never been in a divorce alimony child support situation so this is news to me. Pretty stupid and ingenious at the same time if you are the taxing authority.
Its criminal, really.
Quote:
Originally Posted by warhorse78
This! I seriously think the government needs to be out of marriage period.
Bingo.
Quote:
Originally Posted by DRob4JC
I guess I took it as being neutral.
The payer has already paid tax on the money that is being given away. The recipient isn't paying anything or receiving a benefit on it since it has been taxed already.
The way it is now, the tax payers are actually giving back a little bit to the divorced parties. Not sure why we should reward that...
Doesn't matter. The recipient is getting income, so they have to pay tax on it. Just like any other transaction. Everything you buy at Amazon is with money that was already taxed to you. And yet Amazon still has to pay tax on the money they get from you.
Last edited by Ibginnie; 02-03-2018 at 09:12 PM..
Reason: deleted quoted post
Not disagreeing you at all but as a woman that stayed home( mutually decided) to raise the kids, what would be a good plan for that?
Lol. That sounds snarky but I assure you it's not...
Hmmmm fair question. She really Should get something.
But it's Best to not marry for money or cheat on your husband. That's ONE way to avoid such a dilemma.
Men? You kidding me? Half of these failing marriages are due to no good cheatin’ broads who want you to work like a dog to buy her a bunch of crap, but expects you to still sit at home all day and pamper her ass as if you’re running a spa!
It’s no wonder so many American men are turning to foreign women instead of American women with their “me first” attitudes, and insatiable appetites for big homes, SUV’s, mall shopping trips, tropical vacations, and dinner at fine establishments every weekend.
*standing ovation. I'm sure you'll be accused of being " triggered" but telling the truth isn't triggered. So many thot their way through the "Whoring 20s" then when they but The Wall at 200 mph in their 30s or so, then the guys who have it going on( the same guys who were ignored earlier) now are targeted to finance her irresponsible past, while she can still do whatever, and if he divorced her, she plays, he pays.
I was divorced at age 36. She wasn't a bad person, I admit I wasn't as good a partner as I could have been. I learned a lesson. At least I can admit my part in it, women cannot. Its always the man's fault. Screw that. I was done with it all, then I met MrsLeaveWi.
My SOULMATE. Not perfect, not am I. But we are perfect for each other. Took me 48 years and 9000 miles to find her. She at least admits she has imperfections.
Oh yeah! Those empowered, kick ass self-identified " badass- b*tches" who don't need no man and are superior to all, should have NO trouble finding a good job and kicking butt on the world
It's going to change the way settlements are structured, that's for sure. Beyond that I wonder how much impact this will actually have since alimony/spousal support is becoming rarer. I am surprised though because it makes sense for the person receiving the money to pay income tax, we pay income tax on all income and it doesn't matter that the money is "taxed twice" because that's how money works when it flows between separate entities, which ex's definitely are. And for the person paying it keeps them from going bankrupt in the process..win/win if it keeps them both off the public dole. But I guess someone crunched the numbers and found that the government would get MORE money under the new plan? I have no clue really.
It's going to change the way settlements are structured, that's for sure. Beyond that I wonder how much impact this will actually have since alimony/spousal support is becoming rarer. I am surprised though because it makes sense for the person receiving the money to pay income tax, we pay income tax on all income and it doesn't matter that the money is "taxed twice" because that's how money works when it flows between separate entities, which ex's definitely are. And for the person paying it keeps them from going bankrupt in the process..win/win if it keeps them both off the public dole. But I guess someone crunched the numbers and found that the government would get MORE money under the new plan? I have no clue really.
Unfortunately, Alimony/Permanent Spousal Support is alive and all too well in California; the state we apparently reside in. Aside from myself, I've met three men who were left in ruins as a result of California's unfair/completely biased Alimony laws. One of these men was my co-worker. His alimony payments increased each time her Orange County condo rent increased. Within a 4 year period, I saw this man reduced to living in a dismal motel and riding a bicycle to work. Meanwhile, his non-working ex-wife lived with a boyfriend in the condo he paid for. How a court of law can justify such injustice is far beyond reason and comprehension. Go figure.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have never been in a divorce alimony child support situation so this is news to me. Pretty stupid and ingenious at the same time if you are the taxing authority.
