Ron DeSantis ends permanent alimony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Leopards are their faces

"“He (DeSantis) has just impoverished all the older women of Florida, and I know at least 3,000 women across the state of Florida are switching to Democrat and we will campaign against him, all the way, forever,” Camille Fiveash, a Milton Republican who receives permanent alimony, said in a phone interview Friday."

https://www.jacksonville.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/01/desantis-signs-florida-alimony-overhaul-after-years-of-vetoes/70375186007/

I’m rolling my eyes so hard.

Too bad. This is what happens when you vote against your own interest. Dummies.

[Anonymous]

Long term alimony is on the way out for the vast majority of women divorcing now and in the near future, given that women now make up a large percentage of the workforce and are not dramatically less likely to have earning potential than men; however, this was not the case for today’s elderly women. It’s unfair for this change to affect divorce settlements that are already in effect. It should only affect ones that go into effect starting now, so people can negotiate and set their budgets accordingly.

I don’t understand the State’s interest in ending permanent alimony. Won’t this result in some more people on the public dole?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Long term alimony is on the way out for the vast majority of women divorcing now and in the near future, given that women now make up a large percentage of the workforce and are not dramatically less likely to have earning potential than men; however, this was not the case for today’s elderly women. It’s unfair for this change to affect divorce settlements that are already in effect. It should only affect ones that go into effect starting now, so people can negotiate and set their budgets accordingly.

I don’t understand the State’s interest in ending permanent alimony. Won’t this result in some more people on the public dole?

This new law allows for some retrospective adjustments. People who thought they were protected, are not.

I wonder how many women will be willing to stay home to raise kids, with this new law.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good

Permanent alimony makes absolutely zero damn sense. Why should any man pay some dead beat woman money 18 years after they’ve gotten a divorce simply because she doesn’t want to get a job? Men and women are equal these days. Lazy women can get jobs. It’s not your ex-spouse’s responsibility to fund your lifestyle years and years after a divorce.

I see both sides.

I can understand older women keeping their permanent alimony since they came of age in a time when they weren't necessarily encouraged to get jobs. Their numbers are obviously dwindling.

A "normal" couple who are equals in earnings (even if man earns slightly more) and they aren't an older couple - I can see why the wife in that case shouldn't get lifetime alimony (were they?)

A couple in which one of them (usually the husband) was a mega-earner and this is the first spouse. Usually in cases like that, the woman would have given up her job in order to support the husband/family - she loses out on years work experience. She most likely couldn't easily jump back into the work force at a well paying job. In that case, I would have no problem with her getting permanent alimony.

A second wife who divorces? Meh, it depends on the situation.

If a husband is a mega earner then they’re hiring nannies, au pairs, cleaning staff for the house, and even people to prep food. There are no guarantees in life. You get divorced, too bad. You can go to work bartending, waiting tables, doing administrative support, etc.

Why should your ex fund your lifestyle for years after a divorce and on into retirement. Absurd. Get a job like the millions of other working class people who’ll have to keep working into old age.

Np- people build up to become a mega earner. Some women stay home and do everything for the family while he is building an empire. If she put her career on hold, so he could build his, she should get her fair share.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Long term alimony is on the way out for the vast majority of women divorcing now and in the near future, given that women now make up a large percentage of the workforce and are not dramatically less likely to have earning potential than men; however, this was not the case for today’s elderly women. It’s unfair for this change to affect divorce settlements that are already in effect. It should only affect ones that go into effect starting now, so people can negotiate and set their budgets accordingly.

I don’t understand the State’s interest in ending permanent alimony. Won’t this result in some more people on the public dole?

You can’t be this naive. This is how we got here in the first place. They literally don’t care about costing Floridians more money to take care of Mee Maw. They do not care about grandma and her budget, or her standard of living.

Think about the long game here. Why do this? What message does this send? And who receives that message?

[Anonymous]

Gosh I’m shocked Ron de Santis believes in doing harm to women?

[Anonymous]

What world do you misogynists live in? It has long been the case even in two earner marriages that 1st wives sacrifice their careers to support their husbands’ careers and to do most of the child rearing. If she sacrificed her career development to support you and take care of your kids, and then you left her for a trophy wife, you should pay her for the rest of your life instead of pissing your money away searching for your 3rd or 4th wife. You are tge a**hole.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Long term alimony is on the way out for the vast majority of women divorcing now and in the near future, given that women now make up a large percentage of the workforce and are not dramatically less likely to have earning potential than men; however, this was not the case for today’s elderly women. It’s unfair for this change to affect divorce settlements that are already in effect. It should only affect ones that go into effect starting now, so people can negotiate and set their budgets accordingly.

I don’t understand the State’s interest in ending permanent alimony. Won’t this result in some more people on the public dole?

I know, right? If you are a young woman divorcing today, you are highly unlikely to get permanent alimony. Those who built their lives when society was different should be offered different protections. I have no idea what problem the man is trying to solve here. I guess the cruelty is the point, again.

[Anonymous]

I guess he’s trying to make sure all men vote for him.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why do Republican women keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over again?

These men will just use you and dump you.

Because they're congenital bigots.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What world do you misogynists live in? It has long been the case even in two earner marriages that 1st wives sacrifice their careers to support their husbands’ careers and to do most of the child rearing. If she sacrificed her career development to support you and take care of your kids, and then you left her for a trophy wife, you should pay her for the rest of your life instead of pissing your money away searching for your 3rd or 4th wife. You are tge a**hole.

Get a job like everyone else, bum.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long term alimony is on the way out for the vast majority of women divorcing now and in the near future, given that women now make up a large percentage of the workforce and are not dramatically less likely to have earning potential than men; however, this was not the case for today’s elderly women. It’s unfair for this change to affect divorce settlements that are already in effect. It should only affect ones that go into effect starting now, so people can negotiate and set their budgets accordingly.

I don’t understand the State’s interest in ending permanent alimony. Won’t this result in some more people on the public dole?

I know, right? If you are a young woman divorcing today, you are highly unlikely to get permanent alimony. Those who built their lives when society was different should be offered different protections. I have no idea what problem the man is trying to solve here. I guess the cruelty is the point, again.

He’s fighting for gender equality. About time men got their fair shake in family/divorce court.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why do Republican women keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over again?

These men will just use you and dump you.

Because we are in charge of our bodies and can provide for ourselves?

But we are no longer in charge of our bodies. At least, not in Florida.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long term alimony is on the way out for the vast majority of women divorcing now and in the near future, given that women now make up a large percentage of the workforce and are not dramatically less likely to have earning potential than men; however, this was not the case for today’s elderly women. It’s unfair for this change to affect divorce settlements that are already in effect. It should only affect ones that go into effect starting now, so people can negotiate and set their budgets accordingly.

I don’t understand the State’s interest in ending permanent alimony. Won’t this result in some more people on the public dole?

I know, right? If you are a young woman divorcing today, you are highly unlikely to get permanent alimony. Those who built their lives when society was different should be offered different protections. I have no idea what problem the man is trying to solve here. I guess the cruelty is the point, again.

He’s fighting for gender equality. About time men got their fair shake in family/divorce court.

Gender equality? By punishing grannies whose marriages were put together at a time when women couldn’t open a bank account without their husband? I get that there might be more people with permanent alimony in Florida than anywhere else, but really, how is this the fight he wants to have? I think Pete Buttigieg had the correct question - “what problem is he trying to solve”.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good

Permanent alimony makes absolutely zero damn sense. Why should any man pay some dead beat woman money 18 years after they’ve gotten a divorce simply because she doesn’t want to get a job? Men and women are equal these days. Lazy women can get jobs. It’s not your ex-spouse’s responsibility to fund your lifestyle years and years after a divorce.

Shouldn't you go back to the Kevin Costner thread you've been camped out on the past couple of days?

This same person also seems to be on the student loan thread screaming about deadbeats. Boootstraappsss!