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.
Some ppl in this thread think alimony is as common now as it was in the old days tho...when women didn’t work as much or they were supported their whole life & then the husband left them after 30 yrs. It totally surprises me because there are older staunch feminists in this forum & they ofc know how much it has changed AND how capable we are without alimony.
If I think specifically about people I have personal knowledge about, I know as many men that received alimony as women.
Apparently you don't have a (logical) response to (discuss) my post, which was in direct response to yours - perhaps because yours was a moot point relative to alimony (in today's world) or child support, for that matter. That said, it's certainly (far) more effective to reiterate a (relevant) point for clarity, per the thread, than not have one. :-)
Your response was to mine was regarding where I was citing what younger men are saying regarding alimony and child support - I didn't say that was my opinion or the true state of affairs. My g0d - of course child support is warranted and though lower for the well-educated, divorce does happen. Look before you leap and stop assuming lack of logic.
Your response was to mine was regarding where I was citing what younger men are saying regarding alimony and child support - I didn't say that was my opinion or the true state of affairs.
The segment of your quote which I responded to (in my post #128) didn't have anything to do with younger men. Rather, you were making the point re: women having kids and wanting a divorce for child support (and sometimes alimony) despite being 'younger, well-educated women'.
Oh....You must know a lot of ppl that can’t work or take care of themselves.
It's about disparity.
Carpenter (making $60K a year) divorced from a school district Superintendent (making $150K a year.) Carpenter had put her through grad school, then cut back work to be able to get the kids off and be home when they were done with school. When the divorce happened, it was shortly after the housing crash/recession which hit building trades hard. I don't know how long he got it for, but he got it.
You are discounting the contributions of the SAHS. Or perhaps you feel that the SAHS makes no contributions to the family or that only financials contributions count. In many marriages one spouse, usually the woman, adjusts her life for the wellbeing of the family--moving for the benefit of the husband's job or giving up work because many people (both males and females) believe that this is better for the children. These SAHMS or SAHS give up years of work and job advancement and quarters used to calculate SS, etc. If the marriage ends, should these people be left high and dry? Spousal support has been changing, though, over the years to reflect the fact that more often both spouses work these days.
My ex worked but I made about three times the salary of my ex. I paid spousal support for three years after the divorce as a transitional measure to aid in getting the ex used to less money coming in. Child support, of course, until each was 18.
I have said many times that it is (in my opinion) much better financially to be the one whose career requires the payment of spousal support as that is generally for a finite amount of time than to be the one incapable of making much money. In my personal experience, at least, this has been the case. The current finances of my ex and I reflect this--we have been divorced 23 years now. I guess others' mileage may vary.
I was married for 7 years when I got divorced in 1999. I had not worked until I had my ex removed for domestic violence. I found a part time job that allowed me to work 9-3 since my daughter was in kindergarten at the time.
The judge told me that I was young and could get a job, which was a moot point.
I did get child support, 1/2 of the house and 1/2 of what he wiped out of our bank accounts.
I think he paid me for not taking his pension but I need to read our divorce papers since I'm in my mid 50's.
Quote:
Originally Posted by ocnjgirl
My poor boyfriend has been paying alimony more years then he was married. She claimed she couldn't work after they divorced, and even though the state felt differently and did not approve her for disability, the judge sentenced my Honey to lifetime alimony. It is a lot of money, and it doesn't take much for him to fall behind. I have bailed him out of jail twice now when his back went out and he couldn't work for a few days, that was enough to fall behind. if he falls behind 2 weeks he gets arrested. His kids are grown btw. It is a lie that we don't have debtors prison in this country. They get around that by claiming the arrest is not for a debt, but for defying a court order. It is BS.
There was a group called NJ for Alimony Reform that did manage to eliminate lifetime alimony for future divorce cases, but the legislature refused to make it retroactive. So while she collects forever even though she has a LT boyfriend who lives there, and we never get a chance to have a clean slate and a life of our own. He is having a lot of back pain lately, he's in his 50s and does very physical work. I think of him having to go to jail while he's in agonizing pain and it just makes me sick. I don't understand how she can be so mean and not care one whit about someone she once supposedly loved and had a family with.
I know we talked about this in your thread. What I read said no more lifetime alimony once one of them turns 67, it doesn't specify which one turns 67, it refers to it as when they turn 67. You said it doesn't apply to your fiance. I'll still hope that it will. He got a very bad "deal"
Instead, ex-spouses making the payments can apply in most cases to have them end or be modified when they reach the federal retirement age of 67, unless a judge says otherwise. "Alimony is no longer forever," Leustek said. "Recipients needs to take measures to make sure they secure their future."
The law also stipulates that in marriages lasting fewer than 20 years, the length of payments now cannot exceed the length of the marriage — unless a judge decides there are "exceptional circumstances." Thus, if you were married for seven years, you are not obligated to pay more than seven years of alimony.
2. It doesn't benefit everyone
Most of the law’s changes apply only to couples that get divorced in the future — not to anyone who is currently paying alimony. "This does not change contractual obligations," said Paris Eliades, president of the New Jersey State Bar Association.
But, experts note, the retirement age stipulation does benefit those people. That means even those paying lifetime alimony can apply to end it when they retire.
Quote:
Originally Posted by blueherons
Child support is federally mandated.
Alimony is alive and well. My girlfriend gets it for life and she was only married ten years, no kids.
What state is your friend in? I'm shocked to hear she got it with only 2 years of marriage and no kids. In NJ, if you;re old enough to work, you can support yourself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nov3
Its my understanding that Alimony can be Temporary, Life Long, and Term ends upon re-marriage or live in lifestyles.
My state RARELY even allows alimony unless ten years or more of marital commitment has been shown.
The Temporary is more the "GO TO" for negotiating terms. It allows the ONE SPOUSE to adjust to self Financial independence while seeking employment or another form of education to increase their standard of living. Basically to get a leg up.
LIFE LONG usually is for Marriages that HAVE CONSIDERABLE ASSETS that can cover this "persons" LIFESTYLE. OR if the Person is permanently incapacitated and needs life long care. LIFE LONG Also adjusts to the CURRENT AVG CHANGE in economics- A 2% increase every year ...etc.
Term End is the ability for the Judge and the Spouses to set an absolute time frame:EXAMPLE: 4 years OR upon Living Changes. ( remarriage or moving out of country) .
I come from the mindset that at 18 , you are an adult, married or not, YOU take CARE of your RESPONSIBILITIES - NOT someone else. Once the CONTRACT of MARRIAGE is DISSOLVED, Move along. Just like an employer is NOT required to Keep paying you after you leave the service. WHY should they? You are no longer increasing their profit or creating a service. I think the GRAB Fest needs to cease. Getting half their retirement , half their 401k. Social Security. Its a sad thing for States to PUSH this financial dependency after the GROWN ADULTS move on.
The Courts have already ruled that the CHILD SUPPORT IS the ADULTS asset. Not one penny ever needs to go to the child - directly or indirectly. The State ONLY wants it that they are not burdened with having to cover the child for medical, food or clothing. Which I agree is NOT their responsibility. BUT IT SHOULD BE that the Child support funds GO into an account That can only be used DIRECTLY for that MINORS expenses that are approved for. EACH PARENT equally paying into it.
I waived alimony and waived child support. No regrets what so ever . Two kids and my head held high .
That's not how child support is awarded. It's awarded to cover the roof over the kids head as well as whatever else the kid uses in the house like electric, water and food.
You're lucky you didn't need child support to help you support your child but I did.
My 1st ex rarely paid it at times. Back in 1987 his preschool was $150 a week. I worked, he had to go somewhere. I sent him to one that teaches because he was behind due to his lack of hearing due to ear infections. Thankfully my friend was a teacher there, she would drive him every morning except those rare days she was out or stayed late.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CA4Now
Software programs that calculate it automatically and in a fair way are usually used, e.g. in California, the Dissomaster is used for both spousal support and child support.
Spousal support is meant to allow the party who has been out of the paying workforce to have time to regain a decent standard of living, which is why it is rarely now awarded for life, and is frequently awarded for half the number of years of the marriage. And remember that many, many people who divorce never even see a judge...the divorce is settled out of court between the two parties or the two attorneys who represent them.
Good idea, but it would probably not work in this country.
I read up on alimony and payments and what it's supposed to accomplish on both sides. It's supposed to allow the one that's getting support, to maintain the style of living they had in the marriage, or close to it but and it's a huge but... It's not supposed to raise one up and lower the standard of living of the person paying it.
I had said that he should have filed a court order when he was laid off due to COVID because it would have been reduced from everything I was reading and linking to. This is the post where I did all the links about it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by selhars
Married for 10 years. Alimony for life.
Wow.
I was raised very religious, and for decades could not shake my believe that living together was wrong.
But, now, I gotta say, I'd think 50-million-ways-from-Sunday before I'd marry someone -- and even then only WITH a pre-nup.
But even then...when push came to shove, I don't think I'd take that walk down the aisle.
Prenup isn't the final word, a person can fight it and win. People also get palimony when living together long term. You just never know state and county laws and judges. Roll the dice.
Alimony (now called Spousal Maintenance) was still very much the norm when I divorced in 2008. Only 2 states didn't have long term maintenance (IN and TX), and I lived in one of those states. That was fine with me, I didn't want, or think it appropriate, for my ex to continue supporting me even in part. I was quite capable.
However, my now husband got divorced around the same time in one of the other 48 states. His ex-wife was awarded Permanent Maintenance. It doesn't even end when he retires. She was awarded 50% of his salary, and it will remain that same amount even though in retirement his salary will be zero. This was pretty much the normal, mandated settlement for a marriage 20+ years in his state (and from what I've read, most others as well, at least at that time). She also got 55% of all assets, including pension, 401K, etc, and will be able to collect SS based on his income, so there is no reason whatsoever we should have to keep paying her, thus spending down our retirement savings to do so. It's just horribly bad law.
One of many things that makes no sense to me is the bit about "maintain a similar lifestyle to which each was accustomed."
1. When you split someone's income in half, neither party is going to maintain a lifestyle similar to what they had before.
2. Why does that only apply to the money? My husband was accustomed to having that woman do the cooking, laundry, etc. She is (OF COURSE) no longer expected to provide these things for him, for the sake of "maintaining a lifestyle" similar to what they had before. Yet he is expected to give her several thousand dollars a month so she can sit home on her butt. In other words, he has to continue giving her the result of his labor, but she doesn't have to share what had been HER contributions (the housework). (She has a BS RN, btw, but had chosen to not have a job outside the home even though all their kids were grown.) So "of course" she shouldn't have to start working now and "change her lifestyle."
Here's another goodie. My husband and I have moved several times since we've been together, we've bought several houses together. Because of his Spousal Maintenance payments, his Debt to Income ratio is automatically at 50% even before a mortgage is factored in. Lenders require no more than 37% total DTI generally. So we couldn't get a mortgage despite him working high level, well paying jobs (well actually *I* could, but it was based on my income alone). Yet his ex-wife could get a mortgage on her half of his income, no problem, because it was simply as her income, without the "debt" label applied to his total income.
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.
Some ppl in this thread think alimony is as common now as it was in the old days tho...when women didn’t work as much or they were supported their whole life & then the husband left them after 30 yrs. It totally surprises me because there are older staunch feminists in this forum & they ofc know how much it has changed AND how capable we are without alimony. 
Ita....most ppl that make a lot of money are smart enough to marry somebody that has a good job & can support themselves.
