How long and how much should alimony be?

I'm avoiding marriage because I'm afraid of our alimony laws. I read 75% of men 18-45 are single now, likely for similar reasons.

I know a fair number of men want to abolish it, and a fair number of women say it should be permanent right away because he promised, "till death do us part."

I think it should be equal to the length of the marriage or maybe how many years till the kids are out of the nest. If he married her, she should get more than just the normal amount of child support a single woman would get. Much shorter if she is paying him, since she is the one who gave birth.

The amount should be 30% of his income, minus 30% of hers, if he makes more, but such that with child support, he pays no more than half his income to her.

I'm also bothered that a guy can be forced to pay for a kid that is not his. This is modern day slavery. Men compete by forcing other men to pay for their kids.

 

I never really understood this argument. The purpose of marriage is not to get divorced and when deciding to get married, divorce should not even cross your mind. If it does, you are not ready for marriage and that is fine. You can have a partner and family without a ring and a contract.

The reason so many men and women are single today is probably not fear of divorce, but rather is it prioritising career above family to then, at age 36, realise that you want kids. Only to see it is too late since your womb has dried out and your sperm count is in decline and since you don't even have a partner to "do it" with.

The women are right imo; marriage is a contract and if you sign it, you stick to it.

The solution I see is that marriage is changed from being a state-owned contract to that of a private one where couples themselves decide the terms.

Should be whatever percentage the couple's private contract states it should be.

It is a man (the father) who leaves the poor mother alone in the first place which is a really weak and disgusting thing to do.

 

You can't have a family without marriage if the woman gets angry and wants one. Of course divorce is not the purpose of marriage, but 70% are initiated by women, and 50% of marriages end in divorce. Any major life decision should be preceded by considering the consequences.

Not true. Look at any singles site. The women are desperate to marry men without getting to know him, as long as he has money, because the last guy backed out of marriage. The other men are saying no to marriage too. Men know marriage is a financial trap and are avoiding it. People can get married before getting a degree. The wait is men protecting themselves.

Men don't have control over whether or not the woman divorces him. 70% of divorces are initiated by women, in no-fault divorce. If she claims that he hit her years ago, with zero evidence, she can win a much larger settlement. This gives women tremendous power over the money earner in marriage: "Do what I say or I'll take you to the cleaners." Why not make divorce fair to both sides?

Judges often tear up pre-nups. Women often get very angry if a man proposes one, before even reading it to see if it is fair. My proposed changes would still allow pre-nups but would make the default more fair so everyone does not need one.

That is true but does not justify forcing another man to pay for his kid. This is modern day slavery.

 

I have a very hard time buyong that women divorce their husbands "just like that", there is always a valid reason.

This nihilistic stance of "she'll take your cash and run" or the anti-natalist MGTOW-movement's stance of "they are all gold diggers" is nothing but pure bull.

Kind of do. If a husband makes the wife happy, the wife won't divorce him.

This is why I suggest each couple make up their own contracts! Didn't you read what I write? Obviously, I have a Libertarian bias here, but it is obvious the state is the problem and not marriage. If state let their grip of the institution of marriage go, we'd see more fair divirces.

A real man makes sure his woman never has to take him to court.

Women and children must be protected.

 

I think it all depends.

There is no question that children have to be taken care of. A man is not really a man if he doesn't take care of his children.

But when there are no children, I think the question of alimony should have to do with need, and that can vary from case to case.

If a couple marries at 21, have no children, and they are both working, and they divorce at 25, it makes sense to just divide their assets and go their separate ways with no alimony.

On the other hand, if when they marry, they decide that she will be a "stay at home" mom, and he will support the family, and they raise their kids until they're out of the house, and then they divorce, alimony is appropriate, perhaps for quite a long time. An older woman who has been out of the work force for 25 years is going to have a hard time after the divorce without his support.

My two cents ...

 

Judges disregard prenups all the time. Didn't you read my post?

All your other posts just say, "The wife is the boss. If the husband does what she tells him to do, he need not worry about her divorcing him." Asking for a pre-nup is an easy way to get a false rape accusation.

So, if he marries her, he can either be her slave during the marriage, or if divorced can pay her half his income for the rest of his life.

Women and children can be protected, with some alimony, just not a lifetime of it. Once the kids are grown, she needs to get a job.

 

This is why my Utopia is one where state has no say in the personal agreement that is marriage.

And all you are saying is "all women are money grabbing wh-res who get married just so that they can take your cash and run." and "every divorce case is one where the wife false-reports assault and/or even false-report rape."

I am not well-read into the "divorce laws" in either Sweden nor US, but I know and have also heard the system in the latter is rather unfair. However, I still doubt divorce is nothing a woman takes out "just like that".

No matter how you look at it, marriage is not slavery and divorce is not a natural part of the contract.

I agree. Still don't like how you are stigmatising marriage though.

 

I never implied all marriages or all women. I just said it is impossible for a guy to know which his wife is, and so it does give her power over him.

I agree with Seth, except ten years after the kids leave is all most homemakers need. Five to get a new college degree, and five more till her income peaks in her field. Employers only care about the date of your degree, not how old you are, with the new healthcare laws.

 

50% of marriages end in divorce. I don't see how I'm stigmatizing anything. If the odds are that high, there is nothing wrong with planning for them.

 

Don't you mean there is a 50% risk a marriage will end in divorce(and 50% chance that it won't)?

 

If you DON'T at least consider the possibility, you are hopelessly naive.

Then why do women initiate two divorces in three?

Except that (yet again) women initiate two divorces in three!

 

It depends on the state. I think in mine it is calculated the same as child support for 1 child. I know that a spouse can petition for support for half the length of the marriage, but as far as I know, it can be perpetual until they remarry. In other words, if you were married 10 years, you can petition for it within the first 5 years after the divorce; if 20, then 10 years.

 

Most people who get married do not think about divorce, I am sure.

Because the remaining third is intiated by men.

So friggen what?

 

To be honest I think that the non-working partner, whether it be the man or woman in the marriage, should be expected to find a job so they can support themselves with little assistance from their ex-partner. If they have to be more frugal to do so, then so be it. I never understood this idea that because they lived a certain lifestyle while married that that same lifestyle should be expected to be maintained by the working partner. Life happens and when it does sometimes you have to cut back and make some hard choices. You don't need a lot of skills to start working in retail and plenty of people get by on those jobs. I know I do.

 

Bottom line is that marriage/divorce is an issue that shouldn't at all be politicised.

 

It already is. There are laws that say a judge may award permanent alimony after 10 years of marriage, and that the receiving spouse must be given the same standard of living as during the marriage.

So at 9 years, a guy must divorce the woman he loves or else know she will have absolute power over him for the rest of his life. Why should he have to make that decision. Rather than put some I love through that rejection, I opt not to marry.

 

Removing politics would be ending judicial power and leaving it up to prenups.

 

Woman. "Your honor. Ive grown accustomed to a certain lifestle since being married to him. Even though I am divorcing him in no fault, I believe I should be able to continue living that lifestyle."

Most women I assume would agree with the above. I wonder how many would agree with what my respose would be as the husband.

"Well your Honor. Since marrying her Ive grown accustomed to having sex with her three times a week. Since she is divorcing me through no fault of my own and believes that I should be required to continue to provide for her, she should be required to continue to provide for what Ive grown accustomed to."

 

Most women are no longer worth dating let alone marriage. She will likely sleep around on you and then divorce you. it's not worth it, trust me on that I have been single all my life. Not getting married is the best thing a man can do.

 

Well it should be flexible and fair if your spouse got disabled and you plan to dump him or her then you should pay more and pay longer than if it was a pair of singles divorcing and both worked but one made a lot more, but what is a fair amount? Hard to say really. My mom was a homemaker all her life, supported by my dad and bless her always stood by him and he by her so was a good marriage but if they divorced I would say alimony should be enough to let her get back on her feet say a third of his income, medical insurance covered and some money for school and when later she got disabled and sickly it should be the same but permanent support. Just some thoughts but she would have been bad off without my dad in a divorce. Their generation though has far different values than now and in many ways that's bad.

 

The best thing for someone with this kind of worry is to be somewhat of a loser, and to make sure that the wife is the primary breadwinner. That way, when she divorces said loser, she will be forced to pay alimony. I guess the trick with child support is to make sure said loser isn't so pathetic that they can't get sole custody of any children.

 

This is ridiculous since women are initialing 70% of all divorces. The divorce rate in USA is about 60%. There are plenty of women leave their partner as soon he ends up being disabled. Men are far more likely to stay with their wife if she becomes disabled then women would.

 

Losers? White men loses their jobs because they are men.

 

I'm thinking there might be other reasons....

 

It's common enough because women want full custody of children. They do that because they will get the child support money.