Alimony is unfair and immoral. Prove me wrong.

Okay, here's a hypothetical scenario for you:

Two archaeologists get married.

A year later, they jointly dig up a magic box that produces 10 pounds of gold a day. The box is magically bound to them, so it only works for them.

They get divorced.

Who gets the box? How would you value it in a one-time 50/50 split of assets?

 

What is this "earning potential." ? Let's say we have a couple who began a business together which is worth $10 million dollars. They decide to divorce and split the wealth of the company 50/50. After the divorce, even if she decides to not be in the business anymore, the husband has to keep paying her a percentage of the monthly earnings. This is utterly unfair. If she is not contributing to the business, what right does she have to it's profits ?

 

I've explained it several times in this thread. Pre-divorce, income is a marital asset. Couples invest money and time, and make short-term sacrifices, in order to boost their earning potential. Spend money and time now to attend graduate school, in order to have a better-paying job after graduation. Move around the country to build one spouse's career, at the expense of the other spouse. Spend years scrimping to build a business, looking forward to a long-term payoff.

If a couple sacrifices to significantly boost one of the spouse's income, the spouse whose income was not boosted is entitled to a share of that increased income.

If they split the company's assets 50/50, there is no more company.

If the company continues as a going concern, it means they either sold it, or one of them bought out the other one. As I have pointed out, it is not unusual for such a buyout to include an ongoing stake in the company so the person who was bought out retains a share of profits. This often takes the form of a special annual dividend, or an issue of nonvoting stock.

For instance, if Microsoft were privately owned and the owners divorced, they wouldn't just split up the company. One owner would have to buy out the other one. And it wouldn't just be buying out half of the physical assets. In Microsoft's case, they'd have to buy out the value of all sorts of intellectual property and patents -- the value of which is entirely tied to their future revenue streams. Microsoft Word and, say, Publisher probably have similar-sized code bases. But buying out Word would cost a lot of money, while buying out Publisher wouldn't. Why? Because Word is a cash cow, and Publisher isn't.

 

you sell it and split the money 50/50


if she doesn't want 50% of the business.... she can sell it back to the hubby, or to someone else and take the money and run.....

I get that things get complicated with joint assets and money.... my main gripe is when a girl that a 20 something marries into money so she never has to work in her life, gets a divorce, and expects 50% of sugar daddy's money so she can continue to live the good life.


Where did the Hogan's money come from? it wasn't from Linda Hogan, it was from Hulk Hogan. Why is she entitled to half of it?

 

It has no value to anyone else, because only these two archaeologists can operate it.

No one forced the husband to marry her, and that's what pre-nups are for.

Besides, edge cases like that are not a reason to attack alimony as a concept, as the OP does.

She was married to him for 26 years. The court's presumption is that nothing that happens in such a long partnership is entirely due to one or the other spouse. Perhaps Hogan was able to pursue his career because Linda was home taking care of the house and kids. Perhaps she gave him all sorts of good business advice. Perhaps she sacrificed her own career in order to support his.

You could make every divorce case an expensive, protracted battle where each spouse tries to prove exactly how much each of them contributed to the marriage's financial success. Or you do what the law does: presume it was an equal partnership, and come up with laws for efficiently splitting assets and accounting for income disparities.

 

neither, they cast another magic spell and each gets half

seriously though is it any wonder why so many single parents exist.... why get married if divorce is such a risk

if you cheat on your spouse, you should get nothing but your 50%, end of story

.

.

 

Oh, come on. You're just going to dodge the question? How lame.

 

This is the other double standard men face. BEcause men are not as valuable as women men cannot make any kind of negative statements about women or their manginas will make statements just like this.

Women can make all the hateful statements about men that they want to.

 

How do you define net worth? If one spouse supported the other while the other was going through school, and the only thing they have out of that is education, how do you divide up that education? That education costs money.

 

But what if their joint money went into his education? Shouldn't she be paid back for that?

 

this is the pandora's box....

 

It is all in the manner in which it is applied and the circumstances involved.

It shouldn't be automatic, and it should be reasonable.

If a couple agree to spend their lives together and one stops loving the other, or can't stand to be around them any more they should be free to stop the relationship, but if the other party hasn't done anything wrong they shouldn't have to pay a dime, doesn't matter, male or female. If they built a life together and decide to split, divide the assets and move on.

The only way I can see alimony being justified is if the guy was an old horn dog and was screwing everything from the babysitter to the mother in-law, or was abusing mentally and physically enough that they couldn't deal with it any more.

Just on a whim one day to decide they cut the contract, they need to just move on.

What about mother's living off their children's child support, and not contributing to their support financially?

 

It's not really a major issue. Roughly speaking there are about 900,000 divorces a year in this country (is slightly under now, but was slightly over in 2000). That means since 2014, there were about 12 million divorces. Of those 12 million of divorce, only about 400,000 resulted in alimony. Not 400,000 per year, but 400,000 total. Alimony isn't really much of a factor these days in divorces.

 

now I would be willing to say if both paid for the college, that he had to pay half that cost back to her, no more then that though

but then any cosmetic surgery she should pay him back for too as he will no longer benefit from it if were gonna go that route

remember, they were both one when the choice was made, now they are two, got to split those cost that only benefit one or the other but not both

.

 

That's reasonable. It's a business and if she actually contributed 50% she gets 50%. If she stayed at home and wasn't working or contributing what's fair about 50%? She wants out? She has to sell her share. Part ways. That's that. If the bad marriage is her fault, why should she deserve anything after they split?

 

Just don't get married in the first place. Live together, keep the house in your name making all the mortgage payments and bills yourself. ALWAYS keep separate checking, savings and investment accounts. She has to hold a job of her own and buy all the food as per $0 in lieu of rent in a written agreement. If she's got kids that aren't yours, don't walk RUN. And NEVER let them move in with you.....EVER!

 

(Smacks forehead against wall several times). Because "staying home and not working" is still contributing to the success of the household, many examples of which I've given in this thread. More goes into a couple's financial success than just whose paycheck is bigger.

 

Sounds like a ridiculous stereotype to me.

If you don't like it you should have got a prenump.

 

I've never once told my SO to stay at home.

By all means, she's free to work and clean and cook dinner. I won't stop her.

 

http://www.businessinsider.com/r-ha...llion-divorce-check-ex-wife-rejects-it-2015-1

Yes, she is appealing the $975,000,000 check because its not enough for her.... 'dedication'? Her patience? Her devotion? Her cooking? Not sure what she expects, but a billion dollars to go away seems pretty fair to me.

 

yes, that's fair, because this would happen to a man

and who the F is paying my bills if I choose not to work

yep, most fems are fairly lazy leeches IMO

 

Then when the couple sit down to decide which will work and which will look after the home, they should either trust each other (probably a bad idea, but to each their own), or craft a formal agreement providing benefits to the homemaking spouse in the event of divorce.

 

The very concept of alamony is based on the idea that women need a man to support them because they are incapable of supporting themselves. They can work, so they need support from their ex husband until they find a new one.

That is where the entire concept comes from. It has no place in todays world.

 

we need to punish the cheaters in a divorce, not reward them...... imo

personally I think adultery should be a crime as it subjects the other spouse to sexually transmitted diseases

I think there would be less domestic violence if people could get justice in the courts.....

.

 

We finally agree on something.

- - - Updated - - -

And when she just lives with someone..........the alimony carries on.