Alimony is unfair and immoral. Prove me wrong.

ok... we're on the same page then. Yeah, if she helped build the fortune.. that's one thing....

 

I do not agree with alimony period, divide the net worth 50\50 and be done with it, marriage over

be like saying the women owes him life long sex cause he was accustomed to it

that said, I have never known in real life anyone that got alimony

.

 

That's myopic, and misunderstands the partnership aspect of marriage.

See this:
http://www.politicalforum.com/showthread.php?t=391272&p=1064635722#post1064635722

 

that is why she would get 1\2 of everything, if she wants to manage her next husbands money, she can do that, but once divorced, any new money he earns is not hers to manage

that doesn't mean you can't of your own free will help her out if you feel the desire too.. but it should not be required

should you be able to force her to continue to manage your money free of charge, no, that would be ridiculous, your divorced, she no long has to help you nor you her

.

 

Unless expressly.agreed otherwise in the marriage contract - yes.

Don't blame me, I support excluding government from marriage entirely.

 

But it's not just assets; marriages build earning potential as well. In many marriages, the couple makes decisions to boost one spouse's salary, often at the expense of the other spouse.

Some examples:

1. One spouse works to put the other spouse through school, then becomes a non-working spouse taking care of house and kids;

2. Couple moves around the country for one spouse's career;

3. One spouse stays home so the other spouse can work 80+ hours a week to build a career (not uncommon among lawyers trying to make partner, or entrepreneurs trying to start a business).

In such cases, one spouse has sacrificed development of their own earning potential in order to increase their partner's earning potential. Even after a divorce, such a spouse deserves a continuing share of that earning potential they helped build.

 

1) That's why we have these things called jobs. If you refuse to work, that's not my problem. Spouses have no right to free money.

2) The idea of divorce is the marriage is over. Whatever success was mutually earned can be shared, but alimony is payment for life for temp effort.

3) How is it her problem that he can't take care of himself ? If they divorce, he needs to take responsibility for his own life.

4) Yes, a share of the success created. But alimony goes beyond that to lifetime payment well after the reasonable value.

5) If you want to pay alimony, go ahead. Just don't force others to have to pay.

6) Again, any mutually earned money can be divided upon divorce. Any future earnings should individual as they are no longer a couple.

 

divorce breaks all those bonds.....

 

I wonder if you think alimony should continue after they remarry, IE the ex has to support the new hubby too

.

 

See my post about earning potential, since you apparently missed the point.

Take, as an example, two young lawyers falling in love and getting married.

They decide that he has the best shot at making partner, so they make all their financial and career decisions around getting him to that point. They move around the country for his jobs. She works part time (or stays home to raise the kids) so he can work 80+ hours for 10 years in order to climb the ladder.

It works. He makes partner, where his income is roughly double what it would be without their shared sacrifice (say, $200,000 a year vs. $100,000 a year).

Then they divorce.

According to you, he should get to keep the $200K salary all to himself, while she has to suddenly try to restart a career that was put on hold for 10 years.

That makes no sense at all. That extra $100K a year is a result of a shared effort; she deserves a continuing share of that extra income, for life.

- - - Updated - - -

Sure, but earning potential is just another marital asset, to be divided equitably. It's transparently unfair to let one spouse keep 100% of the earning potential that the couple built together.

 

no it's not, your basically saying he has to work and pay her while she does nothing, like I said maybe she should have to provide sex to him in return as he was accustomed to that too

when you divorce you are no longer a pair, the bonds that bind you have been cut or at least should be

.

 

It is, and was as she was a stay at home mom. But I got left with 100% of the expenses and she's the one who left.

 

As others have pointed out, yours (and others') attempt to classify this as some sort of "feminist" or double standard issue is baseless. Alimony is awarded to either spouse based on the circumstances.

Furthermore, the concept of alimony was develop waaaay before the "feminist" movement, so your attempt to attribute alimony to that is erroneous and partisan politics.

I agree, however, that the issue is a complex one. As Rayti has so eloquently pointed out, it is rooted in the proposition of a partnership where one spouse has given up earning potential for the benefit of the family unit, as well as the concern over the societal issue of scores of millions of destitute people who gave up their earning potential and now are left by spouses.

But I can certainly recognize some of the perceived injustices folks have alluded to.

By the way, if you are the one making an assertion (" Alimony is unfair and immoral."), it is your burden to prove you claim, not the obligation of everyone else to disprove it.

 

Yep. She helped build his earning potential, and is entitled to an ongoing share of that potential.

If his earning potential ever changed (say, he lost his partner position and had to take a lower-paying job), the alimony can be adjusted or eliminated to reflect that. But the earning potential developed during the marriage has to be shared between the people who built it.

Think of it as a business where the two founders have a falling out. Often one founder is bought out, receiving an ongoing share of profits, or a grant of stock, or some other asset whereby they continue to receive a share of the company's income stream. That is a fair, equitable way to share in something (an ongoing revenue stream) that was built by joint sacrifice.

Sex is not a marital asset. You can't compel behavior. But property and money can be.

It's rarely that clean. If you have joint custody of the kids, for example, you're still bound to your ex-spouse. Alimony is like that -- a continued sharing of marital assets that cannot be cleanly divided at the time of divorce.

 

It all depends on the circumstances. Let's say we have a couple that married in college. After college, the wife works and pays for her husband to go through medical school. After he finishes med school, he divorces her to marry his receptionist. IMHO, that is a circumstance taht makes alimony the correct thing.

 

yep, and she gets 50% of everything up until the point of divorce, nothing else imo, same as if she was the bread winner in the family

the man should not get a paycheck from the women just cause he divorced her, he would need to look for a new sugar mama

.

 

It's because, by the nature of the contract, half of the money that a person makes belongs to their spouse. The contracts can be pretty complicated, though. And enforcement varies widely. But basically, that's it.

 

not future earnings after the divorce, money they have made together while they were married should be split 50\50

.

 

if one spouse participated significantly in the process of getting his or her partner to a place where they could earn substantially more than they would have been able to earn absent the relationship, then, upon separation, the spouse that aided is entitled to a continuing portion of that revenue stream that he or she helped to create.

 

my sister, for example, worked two jobs AND raised two children while her husband attended Harvard Graduate School and got his PhD. in Economics. He would have been unable to attend that program had she been a stay at home Mom or if he had been a single parent. She made his educational achievement possible. And with that educational achievement, he was able to rise high in American industry, while she was always at his side as the perfect hostess and home manager. He is now worth close to $100M. If he ever decided to leave my sister for some young broad at this time of her life (age 68 ), she would darned right be entitled to an ongoing share of his wealth that was accumulated during their marriage. She might structure it as a lump sum, or she might chose to structure it as alimony. If he left her, it would certainly be her call.

 

If there was no cheating or wrong doing involved, and the wife chooses to leave, there should be no "required" alimony. Splitting assets fairly, ect...OK. If he wants to throw her a bone, to help her get on her feet, that's up to him. Her leaving, then forcing him to pay for a life style she lost, is BEYOND atrocious and immoral. But, it happens.

 

So if she wants to leave a bad marriage, she must give up her share of the marital earning potential that she helped build? How is that fair?

 

disagree, if they own a business, the business is split 50\50, future labored income by the male or female is not a right to either

so if a rich man puts his wife through college, does she owe him a check for life even though he is filthy rich and has a prenup?

remember without him putting her through college she would not have that income

.

 

Only if they're liquidating the business for its assets. And even then, assets that have ongoing value (like, say, a client list) are given a present value that accounts for that future value.

If the business will continue operating under one of the partners, the settlement will include something that takes into account that ongoing revenue stream -- usually a passive stake, like non-voting stock or a dividend set as a percentage of profits. But it can also be a buyout of that future income -- i.e., I'll give you $300,000 now to buy you out of your right to $1 million over the next 20 years.

No.

#1, a prenup tends to override everything else.

#2, the value of that degree would be reflected in her income, so it would not have to be considered separately.

#3, Alimony is about addressing income disparities within a marriage. It exists for cases where one person makes substantially more than the other; it is designed to provide recompense to a lower-paid spouse for the time spent building the marriage's joint success. The person with lower income will never be required to pay alimony to the person with higher income. Child support, yes; but not alimony.

 

I think divorce should mean just that, your divorced, no more strings tie your together... other then a child of course

should a women that cheats on her man get a check for life.. the answer is absolutely not (cheating men I would be less sympathetic of if they had to pay) (I think adultery should still be a crime)

I think if one spouse wants to help the other out voluntarily, that is great, but should not be forced

401k's and stocks should be divided 50\50

.