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.
Divorces almost by definition feature petty ass people. Ask a divorce lawyer.
LOL, yep, I remember a couple that fought over a TV. By the time they got done destroying property they could have bought one for every room. Now when one is abusive that's a different story, the abused needs to get out.
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...
The same plan that would be in place if the husband died: She'd get a job. Not saying it's the best option, but with child support, there's no reason why she couldn't work, etc. Plus, most divorces split assets, so in theory, there should be some money (to a lot of money) upon the divorce.
That being said, SAHM's are a lot less common these days, at least in urban areas. I honestly can't think a single friend of mine currently who has kids where both parents aren't working. The friends who were SAHM's after their children's birth, went back to work within a year or so.
I favor just eliminating alimony completely. Child support to 18 strictly enforced but zero alimony.
That would be a huge issue as wealthy men and women would change out their partner for newer models without caring how they screw up the prior mates.
I think this is great! It will make a big difference at how a couple decides breaking up. Money is the most common excuse for getting a divorce, so there will be a decline. That's probably the thought process for dropping the deduction.
Maybe people will think marriage through a little better as well. Use their brains rather than their southern exposure.
Quote:
Originally Posted by petch751
LOL, yep, I remember a couple that fought over a TV. By the time they got done destroying property they could have bought one for every room. Now when one is abusive that's a different story, the abused needs to get out.
If that is the case, the abuser needs to go to jail and give up any rights to personal property which would go to the abused.
Unfortunately, Alimony/Permanent Spousal Support is alive and all too well in California; the state we apparently reside in.
how come no one brings up that if alimoney is there to provide spousal support for the non-working spouse, how come it isnt bi-directional?
the non-working spouse should provide "alimony" for the working spouse post divorce as well, keep going over to his place and cook/cleaning/etc
it wasnt like stay at home spouses didnt "work", they just didnt earn income
make it fair, both parties have to keep providing the same spousal supprt in divorce, i want to see lawyers get in the middle of this fight, one or both might end up poisoned
how come no one brings up that if alimoney is there to provide spousal support for the non-working spouse, how come it isnt bi-directional?
the non-working spouse should provide "alimony" for the working spouse post divorce as well, keep going over to his place and cook/cleaning/etc
it wasnt like stay at home spouses didnt "work", they just didnt earn income
make it fair, both parties have to keep providing the same spousal supprt in divorce, i want to see lawyers get in the middle of this fight, one or both might end up poisoned
Because the issue is financial support not tit for tat.
The purpose of alimony was to avoid leaving women and children destitute in a day when women were expected to stay home and did not have the means to financially support themselves.
Whatever the arrangement is -- like a couple living together -- once the income has been taxed when it is earned, how a person 'shares' their income is their business.
The govt. is double dipping. Are you all okay with that?
I don't understand at all anymore. And i will never ever let any conservative talk about conservative fiscal policy, less govt. intervention, etc. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that is all bull and there is no real intent for any of that.
Whatever the arrangement is -- like a couple living together -- once the income has been taxed when it is earned, how a person 'shares' their income is their business.
The govt. is double dipping. Are you all okay with that?
I don't understand at all anymore. And i will never ever let any conservative talk about conservative fiscal policy, less govt. intervention, etc. It has been proven beyond a shadow of a doubt that is all bull and there is no real intent for any of that.
Its not really sharing though is it. I think the tax on alimony payments should be paid by the recipient. The one paying never sees the money and the money is in effect an income for the recipient.
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.
