I'm not saying that alimony should be very high, of course.
Legolas Send a noteboard - 30/09/2010 11:27:08 PM
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.
The alimony should be such as to compensate for the woman (or man in rare cases) for the lower salary than she'd otherwise have, to some extent, and obviously not if that ends up meaning she is better off than the husband.
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.
There might be multiple children? I think ten to fifteen years isn't so bad an approximation of the amount of time many women put their career on hold.
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.
I can't agree with you there. People do divorce too easily, but I don't think weakening the position of the financially most dependent partner is a good way of lowering the divorce rate.
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?
Perfectly fair, if he's paying no more than the amount it takes to balance things out between them. Certainly if the woman makes more than him, or is maintained by a new lover, there shouldn't be alimony.
Scuzziest politcal ad of the season... so far
- 29/09/2010 08:06:19 PM
1046 Views
Wow...that reminds me of Homer Simpson looking for that "sweet, sweet can".
- 29/09/2010 08:31:35 PM
715 Views
You think that's worse than Renee Elmer's one in North Carolina?
- 29/09/2010 08:38:30 PM
1039 Views
The ad didn't make me cringe, but the interview afterward certainly did
- 29/09/2010 09:07:06 PM
674 Views
I despise them both. In their own way they are both disgusting, manipulative, ignorant tools.
- 30/09/2010 03:46:36 AM
591 Views
*NM*
To be fair...
- 29/09/2010 11:59:33 PM
757 Views
Why should a woman get alimony for cheating on her husband?
- 30/09/2010 05:23:03 AM
672 Views
Because the law in question only eliminated it for women.
- 30/09/2010 05:27:12 AM
928 Views
You can argue almost any position but that doesn’t make it right
- 30/09/2010 08:17:03 PM
777 Views
Poor life choices?
- 30/09/2010 09:46:14 PM
747 Views
I did say in rare case they deserve limited alimony
- 30/09/2010 10:47:39 PM
762 Views
I'm not saying that alimony should be very high, of course.
- 30/09/2010 11:27:08 PM
679 Views