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.
Absolutely not. It's not something you can have a set formula for. Take me for example;
After a 30 year marriage, most of it as a SAHM, I'll be getting spousal support until retirement. At age 53 with an AA Degree and no recent work history I will "get a job", assuming I can get hired, but am unlikely to become self supporting. My H, who makes over 6 figures a year (thanks in part to the MBA he got during our marriage) isn't even questioning it. We had a plan, now he wants a younger woman and will pay for the future he took from me. End of story.
Soo.. he makes six figures and he has to pay alimony until you retire (which is what, age 65 now?)
If you have an AA degree now would be a great time to use that money and go back to school and try to become self-supporting.. no excuse. 12 years of supporting someone is a LONG time.
Should there be a cap on child support/alimony payments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ceece
Absolutely not. It's not something you can have a set formula for. Take me for example;
After a 30 year marriage, most of it as a SAHM, I'll be getting spousal support until retirement. At age 53 with an AA Degree and no recent work history I will "get a job", assuming I can get hired, but am unlikely to become self supporting. My H, who makes over 6 figures a year (thanks in part to the MBA he got during our marriage) isn't even questioning it. We had a plan, now he wants a younger woman and will pay for the future he took from me. End of story.
Why should your ex husband be obligated to pay you alimony until you retire? Is it because he makes a good living? Is it because he got an MBA while he was married to you? What part of his MBA are you responsible for? Or is it because you were able to stay at home all those years you were married and not work out of the home? Why can't you support yourself? Why should anyone except yourself have to support you? Is this the fate a man should have to face when he marries a woman that wants to stay home? Should he have to pay alimony just because you had a plan that didn't work out? I would like to know what goes on in a woman's head that makes them think they are entitled to the fruits of someone else labor. What makes a woman think she is so damn good that she deserves a lifetime pension paid for by someone else?
Why should your ex husband be obligated to pay you alimony until you retire? Is it because he makes a good living? Is it because he got an MBA while he was married to you? What part of his MBA are you responsible for? Or is it because you were able to stay at home all those years you were married and not work out of the home? Why can't you support yourself? Why should anyone except yourself have to support you? Is this the fate a man should have to face when he marries a woman that wants to stay home? Should he have to pay alimony just because you had a plan that didn't work out? I would like to know what goes on in a woman's head that makes them think they are entitled to the fruits of someone else labor. What makes a woman think she is so damn good that she deserves a lifetime pension paid for by someone else?
What do you mean "why can't she support herself?" People in their 50's with advanced degrees and 30-year work histories can't get jobs--on what planet would a woman with no work experience and an AA be able to make enough money to support herself? Why do you assume she stayed home because "she was able" or "wanted" to do so? It's likely that HE wanted her to stay home, too. Marriage is a contract, and under that contract, she in effect worked for HIM until he broke the contract. She was married for thirty years! Until recently, and sometimes even these days, that was the deal agreed to between the two parties, husband and wife. A man worked and supported his wife financially while she ran the household for him and made it possible for him to advance in his career. That is counted as something of value in a court of law.
Hmmmm. This is something I've been thinking about for the better part of 12 years......
The conclusion I've come to is that putting a cap on child support or alimony/maintenence is not nearly so important as getting rid of no fault divorce. Under the current system, the man will get hosed regardless of weather the breakup is his doing or not.
Sure, if he elects to abandon his SAHM wife of 20 years for a younger model, well, that's gonna cost him..... Rightfully so. However, if it's the wife who chooses to go out and have affairs because he doesn't show her enough affection, well guess what, she doesn't get squat. Remember, one of the legitimate functions of government is to enforce contracts. As it exists in society, marriage is a contract....
When determining child support, the current system is so stacked against the man that it simply cannot be fixed. We need to scrap it and start over.
I think Chris Rock the comedian described the situation best. He said, "If you make ten million and she gets half, you still got five million. You ain't starvin'. Now, if you make 30 thousand and she gets half, you're starvin'!"
I think this is valid and true. How child support is determined for the very wealthy is a whole different animal than how it is figured for us average guys. In my case, my support obligation was figured on my income before the onset of the Great Depression version 2.0. Now, regardless of the fact that it has proven impossible to make the same income, the Family Support Registry will not reduce my obligation, even on a temporary basis. I simply owe what I owe based on my average income over the last 12 years. Yes, I pay it, no, I'm not behind, but when I see her driving a brand new car while continuing to petition the court for even more from me, I tend to get a little irritated.....
Hmmmm. This is something I've been thinking about for the better part of 12 years......
The conclusion I've come to is that putting a cap on child support or alimony/maintenence is not nearly so important as getting rid of no fault divorce. Under the current system, the man will get hosed regardless of weather the breakup is his doing or not.
Sure, if he elects to abandon his SAHM wife of 20 years for a younger model, well, that's gonna cost him..... Rightfully so. However, if it's the wife who chooses to go out and have affairs because he doesn't show her enough affection, well guess what, she doesn't get squat. Remember, one of the legitimate functions of government is to enforce contracts. As it exists in society, marriage is a contract....
When determining child support, the current system is so stacked against the man that it simply cannot be fixed. We need to scrap it and start over.
I think Chris Rock the comedian described the situation best. He said, "If you make ten million and she gets half, you still got five million. You ain't starvin'. Now, if you make 30 thousand and she gets half, you're starvin'!"
I think this is valid and true. How child support is determined for the very wealthy is a whole different animal than how it is figured for us average guys. In my case, my support obligation was figured on my income before the onset of the Great Depression version 2.0. Now, regardless of the fact that it has proven impossible to make the same income, the Family Support Registry will not reduce my obligation, even on a temporary basis. I simply owe what I owe based on my average income over the last 12 years. Yes, I pay it, no, I'm not behind, but when I see her driving a brand new car while continuing to petition the court for even more from me, I tend to get a little irritated.....
Since the child support is income based and your income went down through no fault of your own, I don't think it's fair that yours doesn't get reduced. However, whether men or women are the ones that get most screwed in divorce is a matter of perspective from where you sit. I can introduce you to a lot of women who got little or no child support from their exes, myself included. I bit my tongue and said nothing to my daughter about it, but somehow she knew, and she learned that she could get Dad to take her shopping for clothes or a new phone or whatever she needed. It didn't bother him in the least that I had to use credit cards to sometimes buy food or pay for utilities while he ate dinner at restaurants every night, but I shouldn't have been too surprised, because he didn't think he was supposed to pay for any of that when we were married, either. Women who do get better child support from the kids' father are generally those who can afford to retain a lawyer in the first place.
I think I read somewhere that the percentage of men who don't pay their child support is around 28%.
Should there be a cap on child support/alimony payments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
What do you mean "why can't she support herself?" People in their 50's with advanced degrees and 30-year work histories can't get jobs--on what planet would a woman with no work experience and an AA be able to make enough money to support herself? Why do you assume she stayed home because "she was able" or "wanted" to do so? It's likely that HE wanted her to stay home, too. Marriage is a contract, and under that contract, she in effect worked for HIM until he broke the contract. She was married for thirty years! Until recently, and sometimes even these days, that was the deal agreed to between the two parties, husband and wife. A man worked and supported his wife financially while she ran the household for him and made it possible for him to advance in his career. That is counted as something of value in a court of law.
Your thinking is screwed up! Because they were married she worked for him? BS, turn it around, he worked for her. The deal agreed upon? Come on, this is real life, it's not high school. A deal is a bunch of words, surely not something to stick a person, man or woman for thousands of dollars of support. What if a husband got killed and couldn't work, would his widow be paid by someone just because she didn't do any planning and has no skills? A man can advance in his career without a woman running a household, and why is it that she is running the household for him, why not herself? Your polluted ideas don't hold water. Because two people spend 30 years together doesn't mean one has to support the other if they break up. If the shoe were on the other foot, you would feel entirely different. Woman's lib is fine until you apply the principles, or until they affect you.
Your thinking is screwed up! Because they were married she worked for him? BS, turn it around, he worked for her. The deal agreed upon? Come on, this is real life, it's not high school. A deal is a bunch of words, surely not something to stick a person, man or woman for thousands of dollars of support. What if a husband got killed and couldn't work, would his widow be paid by someone just because she didn't do any planning and has no skills? A man can advance in his career without a woman running a household, and why is it that she is running the household for him, why not herself? Your polluted ideas don't hold water. Because two people spend 30 years together doesn't mean one has to support the other if they break up. If the shoe were on the other foot, you would feel entirely different. Woman's lib is fine until you apply the principles, or until they affect you.
Yes, it's real life, and in real life, marriage is a contract. A contract might be just a bunch of words, but they hold up in court.
Yes, if "a husband got killed and couldn't work"--which I'm pretty sure would be the case since he'd be dead--his widow would get his life insurance to provide for her.
Yes, a man can advance in his career without a woman running a household, but that has nothing to do with this case. They married and agreed that he would work outside the home, and she would stay home and take care of the children and the household. He then chose to dissolve that agreement. SHE didn't. She is not "running the household for herself" because if he didn't agree to provide the financial support, she would have been working.
My shoe is on neither foot. I am a woman who has worked for 32 years and supported herself all her adult life. I did NOT agree at any point that my husband could stay home and drink and snort coke and watch porn all day, so that's why when I kicked his ass to the curb, I didn't have to pay him anything, either.
And by the way, these laws long predate women's lib. As a matter of fact, women's lib made it more DIFFICULT for women to collect alimony just for being married. If the woman who posted her story had been married for say, ten years, and was a SAHM, it is likely that the post-divorce agreement would have provided temporary support in order for her to get/complete her education and join the workforce because she is young enough to have a few decades ahead of her to build a career and save for her own retirement.
You sound pretty young, so you probably don't remember this, but a few years back a woman successfully sued her ex-husband for a portion of his future earnings as a doctor. They married, and the deal was that she would support him while he went to medical school, and then she would stay home and have a family. As soon as her husband got his MD, he dumped her for another woman. The courts ruled that because he breached the agreement made in their marriage, she was entitled to a settlement on his future earnings.
Last edited by Mightyqueen801; 07-09-2011 at 08:24 PM..
Should there be a cap on child support/alimony payments?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mightyqueen801
Yes, it's real life, and in real life, marriage is a contract. A contract might be just a bunch of words, but they hold up in court.
Yes, if "a husband got killed and couldn't work"--which I'm pretty sure would be the case since he'd be dead--his widow would get his life insurance to provide for her.
Yes, a man can advance in his career without a woman running a household, but that has nothing to do with this case. They married and agreed that he would work outside the home, and she would stay home and take care of the children and the household. He then chose to dissolve that agreement. SHE didn't. She is not "running the household for herself" because if he didn't agree to provide the financial support, she would have been working.
My shoe is on neither foot. I am a woman who has worked for 32 years and supported herself all her adult life. I did NOT agree at any point that my husband could stay home and drink and snort coke and watch porn all day, so that's why when I kicked his ass to the curb, I didn't have to pay him anything, either.
And by the way, these laws long predate women's lib. As a matter of fact, women's lib made it more DIFFICULT for women to collect alimony just for being married. If the woman who posted her story had been married for say, ten years, and was a SAHM, it is likely that the post-divorce agreement would have provided temporary support in order for her to get/complete her education and join the workforce because she is young enough to have a few decades ahead of her to build a career and save for her own retirement.
You sound pretty young, so you probably don't remember this, but a few years back a woman successfully sued her ex-husband for a portion of his future earnings as a doctor. They married, and the deal was that she would support him while he went to medical school, and then she would stay home and have a family. As soon as her husband got his MD, he dumped her for another woman. The courts ruled that because he breached the agreement made in their marriage, she was entitled to a settlement on his future earnings.
The scenario in your last paragraph happened only because one lawyer was better than the other. If the doctor would have disputed her claim of an "agreement" that decision probably wouldn't have been made. We will never know, and it doesn't matter. What matters is right and wrong. If you would have had to pay your ex husband support, you would have thought that was wrong, and I would have to agree. As far as my age goes, I'm older than you, I know that without asking your age. No matter how you try to justify your feelings, your mind is still screwed up, but that is my opinion only. I have been wrong before, but not this time.
He then chose to dissolve that agreement. SHE didn't. She is not "running the household for herself" because if he didn't agree to provide the financial support, she would have been working..
Good evening,
I have a question about this aspect of your post. If SHE decided to dissolve the agreement after 30 years and leave the relationship, possibly even cheated, should she still get alimony? That is the current state of affairs, so regardless of who chooses to leave or cheat, the higher earning spouse is still the one who loses in the end.
The point is that no one put a gun to the housewives' heads and said, "Make yourself completely unable to fend for yourself should your marriage go awry."
Couples makes choices together. In the case of the 'agreement,' there was a spelled out agreement, which is what I am an advocate of. That woman had her smarts on.
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.
Should there be a cap on child support/alimony payments?
Women who do get better child support from the kids' father are generally those who can afford to retain a lawyer in the first place.