Alimony is unfair and immoral. Prove me wrong.

Nobody is saying that, the claim is that alimony is often unfair to men.

 

And what incentive does she have to give it up?

There is none.

 

and alimony is not often unfair to women who have to pay it? Or is it only unfair when a man has to pay it, and totally justified and reasonable when a woman has to pay it? Is your claim biased against women in that regard?

 

A stay at home wife is the part of the partnership that is not building on her future security. She stays home for years and invests her time into the children, her husband and manages the home allowing the husband the ability to focus on his career.

I understood the significance of this when my husband was laid off and I suddenly came home to children doing their homework and supper on the table.

If a woman serves as this type of partner, she is due alimony.

We need more stay at home moms and we need more alimony to go with it.

 

the truth is never dishonest. Find another word. I was not dishonest about anything I said. I know that alimony, in general, is a viable tool in divorce negotiations.

I knew a shipmate who married a young insurance agent, just starting out. He had a fairly nice nest egg and she didn't have two dimes to rub together. He bought her office building for her (them)... he was intimately involved in her staffing decisions, and in picking out her management information systems and data base system. He stayed in the Navy, but was always a part of any major decision she made about her business. She consulted him on everything. After ten years or so, while he was out to sea, she met a new man, and dumped her husband. He went after half the value of her business that was, by law, marital property. She balked. Rather than just cut him a check for half the value, she negotiated that she would pay him "alimony" in monthly payments that, after five years, would equal slightly less than half the business value at the time of the divorce. Good deal for him, eh? Maybe. From her perspective, she was giving him half her hard earned business, for him, he was getting it over an extended period of time...and alimony is tax deductible to the one paying the alimony, and taxable income to the one getting paid. She got a huge tax write off, he had to claim income taxes on what should have been a cut and dried property settlement. Was it fair to him? To her? It is tough to measure "fair" after an extended marriage... how much of what one has amassed is as a result of having the other person in one's life to support them and feed the kids or keep the home fires burning in a host of other ways freeing the breadwinner up to win some serious bread. DO women abuse it? Of course. Do men abuse it? Of course. Is it, in many cases, the least onerous way to dissolve and distribute the assets that a relationship acquired over its life? Of course.

 

Lets also not forget that 80+% of divorces are initiated by women. If they were not guaranteed a free ride, what would the rate be?

80 Percent of Divorces Are Filed By Women
http://www.uplifting-love.com/2013/08/80-percent-of-divorces-are-filed-by.html

 

The dishonesty is in the false equivalency by implication inherent in "women pay alimony too" out of context, that implies that alimony is anywhere near as burdensome on women as a gender as on men. I don't recall anyone in the thread making any gender distinctions about alimony in claiming it's unfair and bad. If so, kindly point them out. If not, inserting the claim "women pay alimony too" into a thread such as this is purposefully disingenuous.

 

there's one

- - - Updated - - -

there's two

 

there's three

 

I lost count.... do I really need to continue?

 

If you think they are lies you have to show me why and back up your claims with verifiable unbiased facts. I will summarily and unilaterally dismiss anything else because they have no substance and credibility to me.

Until you can do that I will stand by my statements.

And I'm beginning to think you think with the wrong head.

 

I tell ya what... If you can find anywhere where I said anything in this thread was a lie, I won't make you retract what seems to be the first lie here.

 

You can't make me retract anything. You are the one who is being dishonest here. You're thinking with the wrong head.

I still stand by my claims about feminism.

Modern third wave feminism is radical and totally hostile towards men and boys.

You can not disprove that.

In ignoring the plight of men, and making this totally about women, you are only making the problem worse.

But i'm sure you won't see that as I think you just want to derail this thread because you are thinking with the wrong head.

 

No, it's the screwing you get for the screwing you didn't get.

But one reason is a wife and mother could spend most of her adult life raising the kids and keeping the home up. That is a full time job. Get a divorce and here she is needing a job with kids and no experience.

As for these ultra rich doing it and getting half of what he has is another thing. I don't believe in that.

 

What's grossly unfair is that some women get millions for living with some slub and some women get bupkus. All of the alimony and child support payments should go into a pool, administered by leftists, who would divide the money equally between all.

 

dishonest.

 

It didn't take long in this thread that was suppose to be about alimony for this to turn into a anti-woman rant. So many men here seem to hate women.

 

Sorry, neither of those make any distinction at all between men and women PAYING alimony. No one said alimony that women pay wasn't also unfair.

 

it goes back to a time that women really didn't have careers, and thus, relied completely on their husbands to financially support the family while she stayed at home.


now, "stay at home mother" loses time and experience in a chosen profession.

a 40 y.o. women has less working experience than a 40 y.o. male if they both have a child, each.

However, she can make her own money at the same rate as men can. Taking time off (for having kids) is a choice. Women make as much as men do (experience being equal, age has nothing to do with it)


just because a woman marries up (ie - a teacher marries a Fortune 500 CEO) doesn't entitle her to half his money upon leaving.

 

Generally, that would be because your income was/is much higher than your ex-spouse's.

 

so you're saying, because he improved her quality of life by earning more than she could, he should be compelled to maintain that quality of life she can't afford on her own after they split up?

 

does that fact that some cases, due to the combination of facts, attorneys and judges, end up with alimony payments that seem "unfair" warrant doing away with alimony as a potential solution to property division disputes?

 

So they were a partnership for 15 years, building a life and future together. Then they get divorced, and now one spouse is supposed to suddenly live in poverty. How does that make sense?

Marriage is a partnership. Partners share in the successes, failures and expectations of that marriage. They both contribute to its success in various ways, not all of them financial.

I know couples where the husband is the earner, but the wife is the money manager. Without her, he'd be broke, despite his high income.

I know couples where one spouse stays home and takes care of the house (and kids, if present) so the other spouse can devote ridiculous amounts of time and energy to building a career. Without the stay-at-home spouse, the working spouse wouldn't be as successful.

I know couples where the money-earner is highly creative, but also prone to substance abuse. His non-working spouse singlehandedly keeps him clean and sober. Without her, he'd be homeless, in jail, or dead.

If those marriages break up, the spouse that isn't working (or, if working, has much lower income) deserves a continuing share of the success they helped created.

I make about 2.5 times what my wife does. We've been married 18 years. If we were to ever get divorced, I would expect to pay alimony. Not only did she take time out of her career to raise young children; we've moved around the country for my career, which made it doubly hard for her to build her own. It would be unfair and illogical to expect her to simply walk away from the financial success she helped build.

 

Best quick example of the hypocracy of the Conservative I have seen recently.

 

No, I'm saying he didn't achieve his financial success all on his own, and she deserves a continuing share of the success she helped build.
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=391272&p=1064635722#post1064635722

Beyond that, think it through: should lower-income spouses really be trapped in bad marriages because they can't afford to divorce?