Does alimony still happen in VA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand why people with earning potential get married any more. You can have kids without marriage and you don't get tied to someone under terrible contract terms.

Why would you have a kid with someone who will not marry, support you and make a life long commitment?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand why people with earning potential get married any more. You can have kids without marriage and you don't get tied to someone under terrible contract terms.

Why would you have a kid with someone who will not marry, support you and make a life long commitment?

I am not PP but I agree...Do you realize that there are men who will not support you? They will marry you and expect you to work full time and be the primary parent...which means you have two jobs and he has one. It is like they want a 1950s housewife plus a high earner and no, they will make no sacrifices for the woman. The woman mommy tracks her career but still has to work out of the home AND be the primary parent. I think marriage is so much worse in this scenario than never marrying.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes, I got divorced three years ago after being married for 24 years. I got alimony for life.

Hopefully the courts force you to work the exact same number of hours as your alimony paying husband.
Otherwise, exactly WHAT special thing did you do to deserve some other working slave to support you for live?

Sigh. . . guy here -- what did she do? In a marriage when you have an arrangement like this, if it works, is a partnership. Into that partnership one spouse puts income from work along with presumably hard stressful work. the stay at home spouse puts in time so the other does not need to worry about kids, food, bills, dry cleaning, home repair, and really anything else. Together it is a partnership. But it is not a partnership for its duration. It extends beyond the end. So alimony. That is the deal. Why? Because you cannot put a career back together with 20 plus years out of the workforce. So when two people make that deal --- it is not for life but it for longer than the marriage. If you do not like that -- don't make the deal.

Correct.

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand why people with earning potential get married any more. You can have kids without marriage and you don't get tied to someone under terrible contract terms.

Why would you have a kid with someone who will not marry, support you and make a life long commitment?

I am not PP but I agree...Do you realize that there are men who will not support you? They will marry you and expect you to work full time and be the primary parent...which means you have two jobs and he has one. It is like they want a 1950s housewife plus a high earner and no, they will make no sacrifices for the woman. The woman mommy tracks her career but still has to work out of the home AND be the primary parent. I think marriage is so much worse in this scenario than never marrying.

Right, which is why some women quit their career jobs and focus on the parenting job. Men don't do diddly at home.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand why people with earning potential get married any more. You can have kids without marriage and you don't get tied to someone under terrible contract terms.

Why would you have a kid with someone who will not marry, support you and make a life long commitment?

I am not PP but I agree...Do you realize that there are men who will not support you? They will marry you and expect you to work full time and be the primary parent...which means you have two jobs and he has one. It is like they want a 1950s housewife plus a high earner and no, they will make no sacrifices for the woman. The woman mommy tracks her career but still has to work out of the home AND be the primary parent. I think marriage is so much worse in this scenario than never marrying.

Right, which is why some women quit their career jobs and focus on the parenting job. Men don't do diddly at home.

You married the wrong man but not a
L marriages are like yours.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The suggestion that in 2021, you need a sahw to fully allow a man to fully succeed in his career.... ? What world do you ladies live in? Is this what you tell yourselves to justify your set ups?

I'm a partner in big law. Yes, twenty years ago the male partners all had sahws. Not any more. I look around my immediate team, and the partners' wives are: counsel for a major corporation (probably making $400k), counsel for a smaller company (makes $240k), special needs therapist, medical research doctor running a fancy national research program, G15 type job at state department, trophy wife and trophy wife. The two trophy wife guys are both in their 60s and close to retirement. Everyone else is 40s and 50s. These guys work a ton, but are all involved in their kids and outsource appropriately at home. Having someone at home folding their underwear is not remotely a necessity for their professional success. No matter what you tell yourself.

I'm sure posters will respond and say that we don't all make high salaries like that. But the whole point of your argument is that your staying home supports your husband's career trajectory. So I assume he's making at least $300k. Most men making that kind of income statistically are married to women with equal income potential. You ladies just opted out.

Men making $200k a year rarely have sahws in hcol areas like dc. Most families all across america have two working parents. No one needs a sahw.

Whatever. There are plenty of kids in the DMV with that scenario and they're doing drugs behind thier parents' backs and getting away with it because the parents are out of touch with their kids. I used to work for a consulting firm and the partners either had a stay at home parent (yes, parent, because now there are also many SAHDs), or they only had one kid - maybe two. 99% of the female partners only had one kid. We all know that the parenting duties are exponential when number two comes along. I really don't understand the money grubbing and need to shame others. This in and of itself is shameful.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing: the things that a stay at home parent does is undervalued. Think of it this way: what would it cost to pay someone to:
1. Keep your house tidy and clean daily;
2. Manage all doctors appointments and take your children to those appointments
3. Pick up your children from school
4. Make sure homework is done, and provide tutoring to your children (tutors cost at least $100/hour, often more in the DMV)
5. Do all of the grocery shopping
6. Do your laundry and take clothes to the cleaners
7. Pick up all family members Rx and run errands
8. Plan and cook meals
9. Stay home with your kids when they are sick or pick them up early if the school nurse calls

I quit a good paying job about five years ago at the urging of my husband. When I was working, we were constantly negotiating who would take the kids to the doctor, pick them up from school. We made this decision to have less stress in our family life. Not only did it make our lives less stressful, we also did this because our kids were struggling with anxiety and depression. I've not been eating bonbons. It's been grueling and not easy to shift into this role, but it has been really important for our children's mental health.

At this point, as I'm pushing 50, I'm not a great candidate in the workforce. It saddens me to see the callous comments in this thread about women who make this sacrifice for their family. Ultimately, it is a benefit to society if a parent can afford to stay home with children who are depressed, etc. I realize not everyone has this luxury - it is no doubt holding us back financially, but being there for kids with special needs in particular is something society should not be shaming.

Let's leave the special needs scenario aside as it is a special case.

For the neurotypical families, the mindset of "what would you pay for someone to do XYZ" is not justified. A SAHM cannot be compared to hired help for one simple reason: the help does not enjoy the fruit of their labor. A personal chef does not eat what he cooks. A nanny doesn't acquire 50% interest in your children. A housekeeper does not live in your house. Everything a SAHM does, she does 50% for herself. Do you grocery shop, plan and cook meals? Half of that is for you. Do you tutor your children? Half of that is on you. Do you have a clean, nicely decorated house? Congratulations, you live there too and you enjoy it. Don't compare your labor for your family with what hired help does, delivers to you and goes home.

It would have cost us more than my salary for child care and I have a masters. Plus, taking care of my mil. What would you propse? A nanny and an aide? Whose paying for all that? Not everyone is high income.

Exactly. A good salary is eaten up by a good nanny and other help. And yes, more and more of us are sandwich generation. I was taking care of my father at the same time as my special needs kids. At some point, it becomes a question of priorities, whether the job is worth it to both spouses and that's where we should respect each other's choices. If a husband and wife decide that there should be a stay at home parent, they are doing so knowing the consequences for each parent - including spousal benefits should things not go well.

[Anonymous]

IDGAF about alimony and for how long, but the social security payout for the non-working spouse needs to stop. I don't want to work and support someone who never did.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand why people with earning potential get married any more. You can have kids without marriage and you don't get tied to someone under terrible contract terms.

That is an option. Not one that many high earners take. But a definite option.

This is increasingly common with younger high earners. Marriage rates are dropping.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand why people with earning potential get married any more. You can have kids without marriage and you don't get tied to someone under terrible contract terms.

Why would you have a kid with someone who will not marry, support you and make a life long commitment?

There are plenty of people who are willing to have kids with people they don't marry. And frankly, it logically makes sense. Marriage is legally an amorphous contact where the state can change the terms at any point.

Marriage rates among the "good catch" crowd are dropping, and pre-nups are now commonplace when there is a marriage. There is an increasing understanding of how it is essentially a bad contract, especially for people with good earning potential.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand why people with earning potential get married any more. You can have kids without marriage and you don't get tied to someone under terrible contract terms.

Why would you have a kid with someone who will not marry, support you and make a life long commitment?

I am not PP but I agree...Do you realize that there are men who will not support you? They will marry you and expect you to work full time and be the primary parent...which means you have two jobs and he has one. It is like they want a 1950s housewife plus a high earner and no, they will make no sacrifices for the woman. The woman mommy tracks her career but still has to work out of the home AND be the primary parent. I think marriage is so much worse in this scenario than never marrying.

Right, which is why some women quit their career jobs and focus on the parenting job. Men don't do diddly at home.

Well, a lot women can’t quit while their husband does nothing at home and they are basically working two jobs (which is like being taken advantage of). Not a good deal at all.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I honestly don't understand why people with earning potential get married any more. You can have kids without marriage and you don't get tied to someone under terrible contract terms.

Why would you have a kid with someone who will not marry, support you and make a life long commitment?

There are plenty of people who are willing to have kids with people they don't marry. And frankly, it logically makes sense. Marriage is legally an amorphous contact where the state can change the terms at any point.

Marriage rates among the "good catch" crowd are dropping, and pre-nups are now commonplace when there is a marriage. There is an increasing understanding of how it is essentially a bad contract, especially for people with good earning potential.

+1. I think it only works with the traditional model. When a woman works, it is a horrible contract and anyone who can support themselves should not enter into it

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suggestion that in 2021, you need a sahw to fully allow a man to fully succeed in his career.... ? What world do you ladies live in? Is this what you tell yourselves to justify your set ups?

I'm a partner in big law. Yes, twenty years ago the male partners all had sahws. Not any more. I look around my immediate team, and the partners' wives are: counsel for a major corporation (probably making $400k), counsel for a smaller company (makes $240k), special needs therapist, medical research doctor running a fancy national research program, G15 type job at state department, trophy wife and trophy wife. The two trophy wife guys are both in their 60s and close to retirement. Everyone else is 40s and 50s. These guys work a ton, but are all involved in their kids and outsource appropriately at home. Having someone at home folding their underwear is not remotely a necessity for their professional success. No matter what you tell yourself.

I'm sure posters will respond and say that we don't all make high salaries like that. But the whole point of your argument is that your staying home supports your husband's career trajectory. So I assume he's making at least $300k. Most men making that kind of income statistically are married to women with equal income potential. You ladies just opted out.

Men making $200k a year rarely have sahws in hcol areas like dc. Most families all across america have two working parents. No one needs a sahw.

Whatever. There are plenty of kids in the DMV with that scenario and they're doing drugs behind thier parents' backs and getting away with it because the parents are out of touch with their kids. I used to work for a consulting firm and the partners either had a stay at home parent (yes, parent, because now there are also many SAHDs), or they only had one kid - maybe two. 99% of the female partners only had one kid. We all know that the parenting duties are exponential when number two comes along. I really don't understand the money grubbing and need to shame others. This in and of itself is shameful.

Oh Christ that stupid argument again. Yes all working parents are neglectful with druggie kids and after hours without parents. Yeah - OK. It’s 20-f-ing-21. The work landscape has changed tremendously. My husband and I BOTH work full-time from home. So good luck kiddos - at least one parent is always hone. He makes $400k. I make $200k. We both cook, carpool, alternate taking kids to dentist, doctor, etc. We have a cleaning lady.

Our kids have a ridiculous amount of time with us as soon as they walk in the door from school.

Frankly, the part-time working moms and WAH moms did all the chaperoning and class mom duties in elementary because they SAHMs had younger siblings they couldn’t leave at home without paid care. It’s a fallacy that they did more. Our PTA President was a working mom. She was a dynamo. Women that can work AND effectively parent tend to be more organized, ambitious and have more energy in general.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suggestion that in 2021, you need a sahw to fully allow a man to fully succeed in his career.... ? What world do you ladies live in? Is this what you tell yourselves to justify your set ups?

I'm a partner in big law. Yes, twenty years ago the male partners all had sahws. Not any more. I look around my immediate team, and the partners' wives are: counsel for a major corporation (probably making $400k), counsel for a smaller company (makes $240k), special needs therapist, medical research doctor running a fancy national research program, G15 type job at state department, trophy wife and trophy wife. The two trophy wife guys are both in their 60s and close to retirement. Everyone else is 40s and 50s. These guys work a ton, but are all involved in their kids and outsource appropriately at home. Having someone at home folding their underwear is not remotely a necessity for their professional success. No matter what you tell yourself.

I'm sure posters will respond and say that we don't all make high salaries like that. But the whole point of your argument is that your staying home supports your husband's career trajectory. So I assume he's making at least $300k. Most men making that kind of income statistically are married to women with equal income potential. You ladies just opted out.

Men making $200k a year rarely have sahws in hcol areas like dc. Most families all across america have two working parents. No one needs a sahw.

Whatever. There are plenty of kids in the DMV with that scenario and they're doing drugs behind thier parents' backs and getting away with it because the parents are out of touch with their kids. I used to work for a consulting firm and the partners either had a stay at home parent (yes, parent, because now there are also many SAHDs), or they only had one kid - maybe two. 99% of the female partners only had one kid. We all know that the parenting duties are exponential when number two comes along. I really don't understand the money grubbing and need to shame others. This in and of itself is shameful.

Plenty on that income.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The suggestion that in 2021, you need a sahw to fully allow a man to fully succeed in his career.... ? What world do you ladies live in? Is this what you tell yourselves to justify your set ups?

I'm a partner in big law. Yes, twenty years ago the male partners all had sahws. Not any more. I look around my immediate team, and the partners' wives are: counsel for a major corporation (probably making $400k), counsel for a smaller company (makes $240k), special needs therapist, medical research doctor running a fancy national research program, G15 type job at state department, trophy wife and trophy wife. The two trophy wife guys are both in their 60s and close to retirement. Everyone else is 40s and 50s. These guys work a ton, but are all involved in their kids and outsource appropriately at home. Having someone at home folding their underwear is not remotely a necessity for their professional success. No matter what you tell yourself.

I'm sure posters will respond and say that we don't all make high salaries like that. But the whole point of your argument is that your staying home supports your husband's career trajectory. So I assume he's making at least $300k. Most men making that kind of income statistically are married to women with equal income potential. You ladies just opted out.

Men making $200k a year rarely have sahws in hcol areas like dc. Most families all across america have two working parents. No one needs a sahw.

Whatever. There are plenty of kids in the DMV with that scenario and they're doing drugs behind thier parents' backs and getting away with it because the parents are out of touch with their kids. I used to work for a consulting firm and the partners either had a stay at home parent (yes, parent, because now there are also many SAHDs), or they only had one kid - maybe two. 99% of the female partners only had one kid. We all know that the parenting duties are exponential when number two comes along. I really don't understand the money grubbing and need to shame others. This in and of itself is shameful.

Oh Christ that stupid argument again. Yes all working parents are neglectful with druggie kids and after hours without parents. Yeah - OK. It’s 20-f-ing-21. The work landscape has changed tremendously. My husband and I BOTH work full-time from home. So good luck kiddos - at least one parent is always hone. He makes $400k. I make $200k. We both cook, carpool, alternate taking kids to dentist, doctor, etc. We have a cleaning lady.

Our kids have a ridiculous amount of time with us as soon as they walk in the door from school.

Frankly, the part-time working moms and WAH moms did all the chaperoning and class mom duties in elementary because they SAHMs had younger siblings they couldn’t leave at home without paid care. It’s a fallacy that they did more. Our PTA President was a working mom. She was a dynamo. Women that can work AND effectively parent tend to be more organized, ambitious and have more energy in general.

I hardly doubt you do any housekeeping or other things on that income. If you enjoy working, great. Why be vicious to other women who choose a different life! And I doubt you work just school hours on that income.

I was always class mom. Went on every field trip. Big deal.