Broke due to child support and alimony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I receive child support from my ex. Raising children is expensive. People who pay child support often underestimate all the cost. My ex is not rich nor is he poor. However the amount he sends me no doubt put me in a much better financial situation than him. He agreed to the amount and I wonder if he regrets it. We shouldn’t be quick to dismiss people who feel they are being strangled with the payments. Using our kids to punish our exes for whatever they have or have not done in the marriage is poor form.

Well this is why 50/50 should be the norm.

If you can’t afford to take care of your kids than he should keep them.

As for men, staying away from marriage is the best course if action for most men

He probably doesn’t want them, pp.
There are a lot of men out there who do not want primary custody of their children, or even 50/50.

If in a divorce both spouses want custody can a judge still give custody to just one of them and the other has to pay? Assuming no abuse, no DV but there is cheating. Or no cheating but one wants the divorce and other doesn't and one wants full custody but other wants to share?

If divorce is mutual and shared custody no one pays anything to the other?

It it completely up to the judge. Some judges always side with the women in the divorce and will give them everything.

How come no one I know ever gets those judges? Do they not sit on benches in MoCo?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move to a different country and give up your citizenship. Send checks only to coveje kids.

US divorce courts are GROSSLY unfair to men. Period.

The faster you get out the better. Singapore speaks English everywhere. You are literally a modern day slave who'll keep laying alimony for for. It's slavery.

The data on courts being unfair to men would disagree with your assertion. In general, men tend to come out of divorces okay financially, but it often tips women and children into poverty.

This.
I also saw a statistic that men who ask for custody get it 93% of the time.

I’m sure there are cases that are unfair toward men out there, but they certainly aren’t the majority.

I also saw at satistic that 97% of all alimony payments are made by men. This is even though these days 50% of the workforce is women and there are now more college graduates that are women than men. Alimony is supposed to be gender neutral, yet courts are massively biased against men when it comes to alimony payments.

Gosh, yes there are just so many men downshifting job to support their hard working wives in top jobs. They all get alimony since those guys with the dad jobs supported the house, family and kids whilst Mom focused on her career building.

The men I know who did this DO get alimony.
Honestly, the men who were in and out of rehab throughout the marriage get alimony. Nearly every man who asks for alimony gets it.

Yup. The mental disorder dads who keep getting fired also get child support and alimony from their MC, UMC ex wife.
Good stuff.

About 2 percent of alimony in America is paid by women.

That’s an old statistic. It was 10 percent in 2018 and probably higher now.

Oh wow, big whoop. 90% still paid by men. Even if the number is 20% that still means men pay 80%. Still GROSSLY unfair to men. Look at all of the nastiness Kevin Federline got for asking for it from Brittany even though women have gotten far higher from their famous ex.husbands.

Ah, theres a Dad of the Year for you back in the day when the kids were little. He wanted $50k a month so he could hire Nannie’s and cooks and maids. Not to spend time with the kid.

So in other words exactly what every woman has ever wanted from their famous ex husbands. $50k was low. Brit got off easy.

Except that those moms DO spend a ton of time with their kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The old saying is, “It’s cheaper to keep her.”

But you only get a 50% say in that. She can leave (and get cash and prizes for doing so) no matter what you want.

No one wants to get a divorce. She doesn’t get cash and prizes. She also loses half of her retirement and access to your entire household income.

The only way a woman would come out financially ahead in divorce vs remaining married would be if her husband was hoarding money away and denying her access to it.

She usually loses the house in this expensive area too. If never worked, can’t buy him out. So they have to sell or he keeps it.

Right?
It only makes sense to think that women have a financial incentive to divorce if you are very controlling of the money in the marriage

[Anonymous]

OP, give us your complete financial situation, and let us judge.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The old saying is, “It’s cheaper to keep her.”

But you only get a 50% say in that. She can leave (and get cash and prizes for doing so) no matter what you want.

No one wants to get a divorce. She doesn’t get cash and prizes. She also loses half of her retirement and access to your entire household income.

The only way a woman would come out financially ahead in divorce vs remaining married would be if her husband was hoarding money away and denying her access to it.

How does she lose half her retirement? Marital retirement assets are split 50/50.

She should lose "access to your entire income" but instead she gets a disproportionate share of it under the fig leaf of "child support".

It is undeniable that women benefit financially from divorce, otherwise women (who are not stupid) would not initiate 75% of divorces.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move to a different country and give up your citizenship. Send checks only to coveje kids.

US divorce courts are GROSSLY unfair to men. Period.

The faster you get out the better. Singapore speaks English everywhere. You are literally a modern day slave who'll keep laying alimony for for. It's slavery.

The data on courts being unfair to men would disagree with your assertion. In general, men tend to come out of divorces okay financially, but it often tips women and children into poverty.

This.
I also saw a statistic that men who ask for custody get it 93% of the time.

I’m sure there are cases that are unfair toward men out there, but they certainly aren’t the majority.

I also saw at satistic that 97% of all alimony payments are made by men. This is even though these days 50% of the workforce is women and there are now more college graduates that are women than men. Alimony is supposed to be gender neutral, yet courts are massively biased against men when it comes to alimony payments.

Gosh, yes there are just so many men downshifting job to support their hard working wives in top jobs. They all get alimony since those guys with the dad jobs supported the house, family and kids whilst Mom focused on her career building.

The men I know who did this DO get alimony.
Honestly, the men who were in and out of rehab throughout the marriage get alimony. Nearly every man who asks for alimony gets it.

Yup. The mental disorder dads who keep getting fired also get child support and alimony from their MC, UMC ex wife.
Good stuff.

About 2 percent of alimony in America is paid by women.

That’s an old statistic. It was 10 percent in 2018 and probably higher now.

Oh wow, big whoop. 90% still paid by men. Even if the number is 20% that still means men pay 80%. Still GROSSLY unfair to men. Look at all of the nastiness Kevin Federline got for asking for it from Brittany even though women have gotten far higher from their famous ex.husbands.

Ah, theres a Dad of the Year for you back in the day when the kids were little. He wanted $50k a month so he could hire Nannie’s and cooks and maids. Not to spend time with the kid.

So in other words exactly what every woman has ever wanted from their famous ex husbands. $50k was low. Brit got off easy.

Except that those moms DO spend a ton of time with their kids.

As well as a lot of time shopping, going on trips, and posting their fancy brunch on insta

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The old saying is, “It’s cheaper to keep her.”

But you only get a 50% say in that. She can leave (and get cash and prizes for doing so) no matter what you want.

No one wants to get a divorce. She doesn’t get cash and prizes. She also loses half of her retirement and access to your entire household income.

The only way a woman would come out financially ahead in divorce vs remaining married would be if her husband was hoarding money away and denying her access to it.

How does she lose half her retirement? Marital retirement assets are split 50/50.

She should lose "access to your entire income" but instead she gets a disproportionate share of it under the fig leaf of "child support".

It is undeniable that women benefit financially from divorce, otherwise women (who are not stupid) would not initiate 75% of divorces.

Okay. If you want to say that splitting assets 50/50 means that no one loses any of their savings or retirement accounts, then I will agree with you.

And she went from having access to 100% of your income to 25% of it or whatever, depending on the situation. So it’s LESS.
The only way women have access to more money post divorce is if they didn’t have access to a large portion of marital money while they were married.

Right now, my husband makes $20k/month and I make $10k/month. I don’t know the rules on child support and alimony, but let’s say that we split the kids 50/50 and he has to pay me $5k/month.
Now, I have to run my household on $15k/month when I used to have access to $30k/month.

The only way it’s a financial advantage to me to have $15k/month instead of $30k/month is if I didn’t actually have any say in how money was spent when we were married or a large portion of it was locked away.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The old saying is, “It’s cheaper to keep her.”

But you only get a 50% say in that. She can leave (and get cash and prizes for doing so) no matter what you want.

No one wants to get a divorce. She doesn’t get cash and prizes. She also loses half of her retirement and access to your entire household income.

The only way a woman would come out financially ahead in divorce vs remaining married would be if her husband was hoarding money away and denying her access to it.

How does she lose half her retirement? Marital retirement assets are split 50/50.

She should lose "access to your entire income" but instead she gets a disproportionate share of it under the fig leaf of "child support".

It is undeniable that women benefit financially from divorce, otherwise women (who are not stupid) would not initiate 75% of divorces.

Okay. If you want to say that splitting assets 50/50 means that no one loses any of their savings or retirement accounts, then I will agree with you. [Both his and hers savings and retirement accounts are added up and divided by two. If they are not already exactly equal then money is transferred so that they are. This means the high earner will lose money and the low earner will gain money. Most of the time this means the man gives money to the woman.]

And she went from having access to 100% of your income to 25% of it or whatever, depending on the situation. So it’s LESS.
The only way women have access to more money post divorce is if they didn’t have access to a large portion of marital money while they were married. ["Access" is irrelevant. As a wife are you actually spending 100% of his income, or even 25%? How much of the money that the married man puts into the joint account does the wife actually spend? I bet it's a lot less than 25%. And when you're married, the money is spent on specific agreed-upon things like the mortgage and day care, it's not like the husband gives the wife $X a month to spend on whatever she wants. On the other hand, after a divorce the man gives the woman money and there is really no accountability whatsoever that she's actually going to spend it on the kids. In that sense she is better off financially than when she was married.]

Right now, my husband makes $20k/month and I make $10k/month. I don’t know the rules on child support and alimony, but let’s say that we split the kids 50/50 and he has to pay me $5k/month.
Now, I have to run my household on $15k/month when I used to have access to $30k/month. [If your "access" means you can spend his $30k a month on whatever you want, and he has no say in the matter at all, then that's great but I bet that's not how it works. You're better off having $5k to do whatever you want with than "access" to $30k where he can veto what you spend it on.]

The only way it’s a financial advantage to me to have $15k/month instead of $30k/month is if I didn’t actually have any say in how money was spent when we were married or a large portion of it was locked away.

[When you're married you have to agree how the money is spent. When you're divorced you decide for yourself. The whole reason people hate child support is you give money to someone else and you have no control over how it is spent, despite the ostensible rationale that it's "for the children".]

[Anonymous]

Being a single parent and working full time is awful. Child care, medical co pays, trying to save for college, plus all the overhead you still had when married.
Really the only reason I see to get married anymore is to have kids, and anyone who has kids is a fool, sorry. - I learned too late

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The old saying is, “It’s cheaper to keep her.”

But you only get a 50% say in that. She can leave (and get cash and prizes for doing so) no matter what you want.

No one wants to get a divorce. She doesn’t get cash and prizes. She also loses half of her retirement and access to your entire household income.

The only way a woman would come out financially ahead in divorce vs remaining married would be if her husband was hoarding money away and denying her access to it.

How does she lose half her retirement? Marital retirement assets are split 50/50.

She should lose "access to your entire income" but instead she gets a disproportionate share of it under the fig leaf of "child support".

It is undeniable that women benefit financially from divorce, otherwise women (who are not stupid) would not initiate 75% of divorces.

Okay. If you want to say that splitting assets 50/50 means that no one loses any of their savings or retirement accounts, then I will agree with you. [Both his and hers savings and retirement accounts are added up and divided by two. If they are not already exactly equal then money is transferred so that they are. This means the high earner will lose money and the low earner will gain money. Most of the time this means the man gives money to the woman.]

And she went from having access to 100% of your income to 25% of it or whatever, depending on the situation. So it’s LESS.
The only way women have access to more money post divorce is if they didn’t have access to a large portion of marital money while they were married. ["Access" is irrelevant. As a wife are you actually spending 100% of his income, or even 25%? How much of the money that the married man puts into the joint account does the wife actually spend? I bet it's a lot less than 25%. And when you're married, the money is spent on specific agreed-upon things like the mortgage and day care, it's not like the husband gives the wife $X a month to spend on whatever she wants. On the other hand, after a divorce the man gives the woman money and there is really no accountability whatsoever that she's actually going to spend it on the kids. In that sense she is better off financially than when she was married.]

Right now, my husband makes $20k/month and I make $10k/month. I don’t know the rules on child support and alimony, but let’s say that we split the kids 50/50 and he has to pay me $5k/month.
Now, I have to run my household on $15k/month when I used to have access to $30k/month. [If your "access" means you can spend his $30k a month on whatever you want, and he has no say in the matter at all, then that's great but I bet that's not how it works. You're better off having $5k to do whatever you want with than "access" to $30k where he can veto what you spend it on.]

The only way it’s a financial advantage to me to have $15k/month instead of $30k/month is if I didn’t actually have any say in how money was spent when we were married or a large portion of it was locked away.

[When you're married you have to agree how the money is spent. When you're divorced you decide for yourself. The whole reason people hate child support is you give money to someone else and you have no control over how it is spent, despite the ostensible rationale that it's "for the children".]

I spend a lot more than 25% of his income. Why would it be less?
Yes. A lot of it goes to things like the mortgage and kids clothes and food and activities. But it’s not like those expenses go away post divorce.

Yes. I can spend our money however I want in order to keep our household running. Sure, there are some major expenses that we agreed on, like the house, but he doesn’t micromanage my day to day spending or veto what I spend it on. (*If I was such a horrible person that I was cheating and wasn’t going to use the money to take care of my children, what would I care about his veto anyway?)

I do think that you and I are on the same page that this makes sense as a financial advantage only if one partner was using money to control the other. The place where we don’t agree is that you seem to think of this as a typical marriage, and it isn’t.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

[When you're married you have to agree how the money is spent. When you're divorced you decide for yourself. The whole reason people hate child support is you give money to someone else and you have no control over how it is spent, despite the ostensible rationale that it's "for the children".]

There is no rule that you have to agree on how money is spent when you are married. If I wanted to go out right now and buy a car, I could do it without my husband’s approval. If he wanted to put a tens of thousands on a high risk stock in an e*trade account, he could do it without my approval.
I guess that maybe he could sell the car. It would be hard for me to pull the money from the e*trade account without him giving me the account information.
The only real recourse you have is being angry.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The old saying is, “It’s cheaper to keep her.”

But you only get a 50% say in that. She can leave (and get cash and prizes for doing so) no matter what you want.

No one wants to get a divorce. She doesn’t get cash and prizes. She also loses half of her retirement and access to your entire household income.

The only way a woman would come out financially ahead in divorce vs remaining married would be if her husband was hoarding money away and denying her access to it.

How does she lose half her retirement? Marital retirement assets are split 50/50.

She should lose "access to your entire income" but instead she gets a disproportionate share of it under the fig leaf of "child support".

It is undeniable that women benefit financially from divorce, otherwise women (who are not stupid) would not initiate 75% of divorces.

Okay. If you want to say that splitting assets 50/50 means that no one loses any of their savings or retirement accounts, then I will agree with you.

And she went from having access to 100% of your income to 25% of it or whatever, depending on the situation. So it’s LESS.
The only way women have access to more money post divorce is if they didn’t have access to a large portion of marital money while they were married.

Right now, my husband makes $20k/month and I make $10k/month. I don’t know the rules on child support and alimony, but let’s say that we split the kids 50/50 and he has to pay me $5k/month.
Now, I have to run my household on $15k/month when I used to have access to $30k/month.

The only way it’s a financial advantage to me to have $15k/month instead of $30k/month is if I didn’t actually have any say in how money was spent when we were married or a large portion of it was locked away.

You wouldn't get $5K a month and you make plenty alone to support your kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The old saying is, “It’s cheaper to keep her.”

But you only get a 50% say in that. She can leave (and get cash and prizes for doing so) no matter what you want.

No one wants to get a divorce. She doesn’t get cash and prizes. She also loses half of her retirement and access to your entire household income.

The only way a woman would come out financially ahead in divorce vs remaining married would be if her husband was hoarding money away and denying her access to it.

How does she lose half her retirement? Marital retirement assets are split 50/50.

She should lose "access to your entire income" but instead she gets a disproportionate share of it under the fig leaf of "child support".

It is undeniable that women benefit financially from divorce, otherwise women (who are not stupid) would not initiate 75% of divorces.

Okay. If you want to say that splitting assets 50/50 means that no one loses any of their savings or retirement accounts, then I will agree with you.

And she went from having access to 100% of your income to 25% of it or whatever, depending on the situation. So it’s LESS.
The only way women have access to more money post divorce is if they didn’t have access to a large portion of marital money while they were married.

Right now, my husband makes $20k/month and I make $10k/month. I don’t know the rules on child support and alimony, but let’s say that we split the kids 50/50 and he has to pay me $5k/month.
Now, I have to run my household on $15k/month when I used to have access to $30k/month.

The only way it’s a financial advantage to me to have $15k/month instead of $30k/month is if I didn’t actually have any say in how money was spent when we were married or a large portion of it was locked away.

You wouldn't get $5K a month and you make plenty alone to support your kids.

I get that. I have supported my family on my own before.
I thought about changing the numbers, but I didn’t feel like it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Move to a different country and give up your citizenship. Send checks only to coveje kids.

US divorce courts are GROSSLY unfair to men. Period.

The faster you get out the better. Singapore speaks English everywhere. You are literally a modern day slave who'll keep laying alimony for for. It's slavery.

The data on courts being unfair to men would disagree with your assertion. In general, men tend to come out of divorces okay financially, but it often tips women and children into poverty.

This.
I also saw a statistic that men who ask for custody get it 93% of the time.

I’m sure there are cases that are unfair toward men out there, but they certainly aren’t the majority.

I also saw at satistic that 97% of all alimony payments are made by men. This is even though these days 50% of the workforce is women and there are now more college graduates that are women than men. Alimony is supposed to be gender neutral, yet courts are massively biased against men when it comes to alimony payments.

Gosh, yes there are just so many men downshifting job to support their hard working wives in top jobs. They all get alimony since those guys with the dad jobs supported the house, family and kids whilst Mom focused on her career building.

The men I know who did this DO get alimony.
Honestly, the men who were in and out of rehab throughout the marriage get alimony. Nearly every man who asks for alimony gets it.

Yup. The mental disorder dads who keep getting fired also get child support and alimony from their MC, UMC ex wife.
Good stuff.

About 2 percent of alimony in America is paid by women.

That’s an old statistic. It was 10 percent in 2018 and probably higher now.

Oh wow, big whoop. 90% still paid by men. Even if the number is 20% that still means men pay 80%. Still GROSSLY unfair to men. Look at all of the nastiness Kevin Federline got for asking for it from Brittany even though women have gotten far higher from their famous ex.husbands.

Ah, theres a Dad of the Year for you back in the day when the kids were little. He wanted $50k a month so he could hire Nannie’s and cooks and maids. Not to spend time with the kid.

So in other words exactly what every woman has ever wanted from their famous ex husbands. $50k was low. Brit got off easy.

Except that those moms DO spend a ton of time with their kids.

How?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

[When you're married you have to agree how the money is spent. When you're divorced you decide for yourself. The whole reason people hate child support is you give money to someone else and you have no control over how it is spent, despite the ostensible rationale that it's "for the children".]

There is no rule that you have to agree on how money is spent when you are married. If I wanted to go out right now and buy a car, I could do it without my husband’s approval. If he wanted to put a tens of thousands on a high risk stock in an e*trade account, he could do it without my approval.
I guess that maybe he could sell the car. It would be hard for me to pull the money from the e*trade account without him giving me the account information.
The only real recourse you have is being angry.

He couldn't sell the car if it's in your name or jointly without your consent (legally). But, this because I can do what ever I want (but my husband doesn't care) and he could to.