I did say in rare case they deserve limited alimony
random thoughts Send a noteboard - 30/09/2010 10:47:39 PM
Except in unusual circumstance you should be able to continue to get your ex-husband’s money if you get divorced and even then it should be for a limited amount of time. You have a right to half of what was earned during the marriage but nothing afterwards. Women are not children and they need child support. They can go out and get jobs and support themselves. Courts should not be in position of compensating for people’s poor life choices.
I'm with Phelix here. There are most definitely cases in which the wife deserves alimony (and, rarer but still existing, cases in which the husband deserves alimony). Men in many of the highest-paying jobs - CEO's, say, top surgeons, that sort of thing - spend so much time on their job that most of the household and care of the children has to fall on their partner's shoulders, who as a result has it difficult in her (or his) professional career. In very few families does the couple think it desirable for both partners to make the kind of family sacrifices required for a career in the top echelons of many fields - and I think most people will agree with that, that it's really not a good idea to leave kids to be raised by the housekeeper or whatever, with the parents always gone. Hence, there's almost inevitably one partner in such families who sacrifices his or her career, not necessarily entirely but at least to some degree, for the sake of the other. That is not a "poor life choice", that is labour division between a married couple. And when that married couple decides to get a divorce, then yes, the partner who made sacrifices should get something in return.
Most families have two working parents but still men often end up paying alimony. The problem with your argument is you focus on the rich and ignore the vast majority of actual cases. The majority of men paying for the ex-wife are not rich.
In the cases where there are rich men with children they will be getting substantial child support anyways. If on the other hand the woman chose to not work simply because her husband makes a lot of money that would be a poor life choice. I think some limited support makes sense but she should not keep getting money until she remarries. Two years should be the limit.
In case that was being discussed here if a married woman has an affair and her husband divorces her that was a poor life choice. If she had built her entire life and was completely dependent on the man she was betraying that was a poor life choice.
Now you do say that there's a right to get half of what was earned during the marriage, or what remains of it, which in some cases may be sufficient, but there are certainly situations in which that just isn't enough. Take a couple, let's see, gets kids at thirty, divorces at forty-five, wife has largely given up her career, maybe kept working part-time or some such. With your suggestion, she'd get her share of what remains of the earnings during their marriage, but nothing more? She's been prevented from serious career progression during fifteen years, while her husband kept working and progressing, and at forty-five is beginning to reach a level where he makes good money. And then when they divorce you think it's fair for both of them to just continue where they are, with no compensation of any kind for the woman having put her career on hold for all those years? It really isn't.
The kids are still minors so she will be getting child support so 20% of his money goes to her for a while anyways. If their child is 15 why has she not worked in fifteen years? The kid would have been going to school for the last ten so why didn't she go back to work? Being a house wife these days really isn't all that hard and if she chose to stay home instead of working that was a poor life choice. The problem with being a kept woman is they don’t normally want to keep you forever.
To be honest I consider any marriage that ends in divorce a poor life choice and we should not make it finically beneficial to have a failed marriage. We don’t want people trapped in dangerous marriages but we should not make giving up on a marriage easy.
But yes in cases where a woman dedicated her life to building a family she deserves some limited support but it shouldn't massive and it shouldn't be for more than a few years except in vary rare cases like she has MS or is disabled. Long term alimony should be exception not the rule. You are arguing the rare cases and ignoring the majority. What about the poor schmuck making 65K a year and paying money to an ex-wife who has a job and is shacked up with the guy she left him for? How fair is that?
Scuzziest politcal ad of the season... so far
- 29/09/2010 08:06:19 PM
1048 Views
Wow...that reminds me of Homer Simpson looking for that "sweet, sweet can".
- 29/09/2010 08:31:35 PM
718 Views
You think that's worse than Renee Elmer's one in North Carolina?
- 29/09/2010 08:38:30 PM
1041 Views
The ad didn't make me cringe, but the interview afterward certainly did
- 29/09/2010 09:07:06 PM
676 Views
I despise them both. In their own way they are both disgusting, manipulative, ignorant tools.
- 30/09/2010 03:46:36 AM
594 Views
*NM*
To be fair...
- 29/09/2010 11:59:33 PM
759 Views
Why should a woman get alimony for cheating on her husband?
- 30/09/2010 05:23:03 AM
676 Views
Because the law in question only eliminated it for women.
- 30/09/2010 05:27:12 AM
929 Views
You can argue almost any position but that doesn’t make it right
- 30/09/2010 08:17:03 PM
781 Views
Poor life choices?
- 30/09/2010 09:46:14 PM
749 Views
I did say in rare case they deserve limited alimony
- 30/09/2010 10:47:39 PM
766 Views