Examples of alimony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get $13,000 a month. Married 23 years. I worked part time.

These are exactly the kinds of unjust and offensive awards that modern alimony reforms are eliminating. Unless you are severely disabled, there is absolutely zero reason that you don’t have a fulltime job.

I said I worked part time while married.

And now you work full time? And why exactly do you deserve $156K/year from a former spouse?

If she is getting $156K after tax from her ex, he is making significant money. For 23 years, do you think she did nothing to contribute to his financial success at work?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get $13,000 a month. Married 23 years. I worked part time.

These are exactly the kinds of unjust and offensive awards that modern alimony reforms are eliminating. Unless you are severely disabled, there is absolutely zero reason that you don’t have a fulltime job.

I said I worked part time while married.

And now you work full time? And why exactly do you deserve $156K/year from a former spouse?

If she is getting $156K after tax from her ex, he is making significant money. For 23 years, do you think she did nothing to contribute to his financial success at work?

Explain how her contributions were so extraordinary that now, and for who knows how many years more, he must continue working an obviously stressful demanding job (one that previously required massive support from his ex-wife, but now he somehow is expected to make do without). Meanwhile she can sit home eating snacks and cashing his checks?

Sorry but this is a perversion and we should all be glad these archaic laws are being reformed, state by state, across the country

[Anonymous]

Alimony is stupid. I’m a woman AND a lawyer. I don’t care my situation, I’d be embarrassed to accept money from my ex. Yuck. It’s just being weak to me and I have no respect for weak women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alimony is stupid. I’m a woman AND a lawyer. I don’t care my situation, I’d be embarrassed to accept money from my ex. Yuck. It’s just being weak to me and I have no respect for weak women.

And we all strive to gain your respect.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get $13,000 a month. Married 23 years. I worked part time.

These are exactly the kinds of unjust and offensive awards that modern alimony reforms are eliminating. Unless you are severely disabled, there is absolutely zero reason that you don’t have a fulltime job.

I said I worked part time while married.

And now you work full time? And why exactly do you deserve $156K/year from a former spouse?

Yeah, and? Buck up and work full time to support yourself now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alimony is stupid. I’m a woman AND a lawyer. I don’t care my situation, I’d be embarrassed to accept money from my ex. Yuck. It’s just being weak to me and I have no respect for weak women.

Let me guess. You either don't have kids or you had them and put them in daycare at several months old.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If you received alimony in your divorce please share your circumstances. How long married, said or working mom, length of marriage, HHI, etc.

I got temporary because we had a newborn with some medical issues who couldn’t go to daycare at 6 weeks. It made it possible for me to stay home with her until she was almost 6 months. However, alimony + CS really only covered housing, bare bones utilities, and emergency medical care. I had to rely on food banks and donated clothing. My parents put gas in my car so we weren’t housebound. Friends gave gift cards for household cleaning supplies, toiletries, and diapers.

I was grateful for it, but I was much better off when maternity leave ended and I got a paycheck again. At that time, CS almost covered daycare. We were still very poor for years. My older child has a lot of anxiety about money as a result.

[Anonymous]

10 year marriage. 5 years of deferred spousal support at $5k/month, in the event I became disabled at any point in the future until/unless I remarried (I have MS). I worked FT throughout the marriage. HHI was $300k.

I negotiated it away for a larger part of the property settlement.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get $13,000 a month. Married 23 years. I worked part time.

These are exactly the kinds of unjust and offensive awards that modern alimony reforms are eliminating. Unless you are severely disabled, there is absolutely zero reason that you don’t have a fulltime job.

I said I worked part time while married.

And now you work full time? And why exactly do you deserve $156K/year from a former spouse?

If she is getting $156K after tax from her ex, he is making significant money. For 23 years, do you think she did nothing to contribute to his financial success at work?

Explain how her contributions were so extraordinary that now, and for who knows how many years more, he must continue working an obviously stressful demanding job (one that previously required massive support from his ex-wife, but now he somehow is expected to make do without). Meanwhile she can sit home eating snacks and cashing his checks?

Sorry but this is a perversion and we should all be glad these archaic laws are being reformed, state by state, across the country

Because for 23 years, she supported him in the background. She may have been a SAHM or had the lower paying, more flexible job. At the time, there was an inherent agreement that both people were working towards the common goal. Once they got to retirement and old age, they would be able to join the fruits of their labor.

Now, as they approach retirement, he has all the money. She has not been on the fast track and perhaps her skills are not what they could be. Perhaps it would have been better during the marriage if she asked for $100K/yr to invest. Then, today, there wouldn't be the need for alimony.

I don't agree with alimony. But I also don't agree that a married person is successful on their own. They have to take of those who took care of them. Perhaps in lieu of monthly alimony, there could be a one time lump sum payment that would acknowledge her contributions to the marriage for 23 yrs.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get $13,000 a month. Married 23 years. I worked part time.

These are exactly the kinds of unjust and offensive awards that modern alimony reforms are eliminating. Unless you are severely disabled, there is absolutely zero reason that you don’t have a fulltime job.

I said I worked part time while married.

And now you work full time? And why exactly do you deserve $156K/year from a former spouse?

If she is getting $156K after tax from her ex, he is making significant money. For 23 years, do you think she did nothing to contribute to his financial success at work?

Explain how her contributions were so extraordinary that now, and for who knows how many years more, he must continue working an obviously stressful demanding job (one that previously required massive support from his ex-wife, but now he somehow is expected to make do without). Meanwhile she can sit home eating snacks and cashing his checks?

Sorry but this is a perversion and we should all be glad these archaic laws are being reformed, state by state, across the country

Because for 23 years, she supported him in the background. She may have been a SAHM or had the lower paying, more flexible job. At the time, there was an inherent agreement that both people were working towards the common goal. Once they got to retirement and old age, they would be able to join the fruits of their labor.

Now, as they approach retirement, he has all the money. She has not been on the fast track and perhaps her skills are not what they could be. Perhaps it would have been better during the marriage if she asked for $100K/yr to invest. Then, today, there wouldn't be the need for alimony.

I don't agree with alimony. But I also don't agree that a married person is successful on their own. They have to take of those who took care of them. Perhaps in lieu of monthly alimony, there could be a one time lump sum payment that would acknowledge her contributions to the marriage for 23 yrs.

No, he does NOT have all of the retirement funds accrued during the marriage. Assets were split as part of the normal divorce settlement. So she’s already been fairly rewarded for any wealth built during the marriage.

Their joint Retirement funds are not the issue here. The issue is an ongoing expectation that he must still work a stressful high paying job that apparently he could only do because of her “support and contributions” but somehow now he must keep doing that job WITHOUT her support? How is that even possible, I mean you just said he can’t be successful on his own?

If he is compelled by the courts to work a full time stressful job, so must the court force HER to work a full time stressful job.

[Anonymous]

Woman here and I agree that alimony is ridiculous. There's no reason any person on God's green earth shouldn't be able to support themselves once divorced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Alimony is stupid. I’m a woman AND a lawyer. I don’t care my situation, I’d be embarrassed to accept money from my ex. Yuck. It’s just being weak to me and I have no respect for weak women.

Wow, how insensitive.

So when both the man and woman agree that the woman should not work to have/take care of children, you think she doesn’t deserve anything for that contribution? You think she’s weak bc she dedicated her body and time to caring for the kids instead of making her own money?

If DH and I divorced, one of us would need a flexible schedule to be able to handle the logistics of our kids, unless we wanted them in before and aftercare, which we don’t. And would still be the case if we divorced.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I get $13,000 a month. Married 23 years. I worked part time.

These are exactly the kinds of unjust and offensive awards that modern alimony reforms are eliminating. Unless you are severely disabled, there is absolutely zero reason that you don’t have a fulltime job.

I said I worked part time while married.

And now you work full time? And why exactly do you deserve $156K/year from a former spouse?

If she is getting $156K after tax from her ex, he is making significant money. For 23 years, do you think she did nothing to contribute to his financial success at work?

Explain how her contributions were so extraordinary that now, and for who knows how many years more, he must continue working an obviously stressful demanding job (one that previously required massive support from his ex-wife, but now he somehow is expected to make do without). Meanwhile she can sit home eating snacks and cashing his checks?

Sorry but this is a perversion and we should all be glad these archaic laws are being reformed, state by state, across the country

Because for 23 years, she supported him in the background. She may have been a SAHM or had the lower paying, more flexible job. At the time, there was an inherent agreement that both people were working towards the common goal. Once they got to retirement and old age, they would be able to join the fruits of their labor.

Now, as they approach retirement, he has all the money. She has not been on the fast track and perhaps her skills are not what they could be. Perhaps it would have been better during the marriage if she asked for $100K/yr to invest. Then, today, there wouldn't be the need for alimony.

I don't agree with alimony. But I also don't agree that a married person is successful on their own. They have to take of those who took care of them. Perhaps in lieu of monthly alimony, there could be a one time lump sum payment that would acknowledge her contributions to the marriage for 23 yrs.

No, he does NOT have all of the retirement funds accrued during the marriage. Assets were split as part of the normal divorce settlement. So she’s already been fairly rewarded for any wealth built during the marriage.

Their joint Retirement funds are not the issue here. The issue is an ongoing expectation that he must still work a stressful high paying job that apparently he could only do because of her “support and contributions” but somehow now he must keep doing that job WITHOUT her support? How is that even possible, I mean you just said he can’t be successful on his own?

If he is compelled by the courts to work a full time stressful job, so must the court force HER to work a full time stressful job.

I love that you are assuming his job is “so stressful” if we’re speculating, this dude could love his job. Does that make a difference?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Woman here and I agree that alimony is ridiculous. There's no reason any person on God's green earth shouldn't be able to support themselves once divorced.

Genuine question. Before getting a divorce should said person make sure they can support themselves? Regardless of the situation ?

What about those who were “forced” to divorce so they haven’t had ample time to get back on their feet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Woman here and I agree that alimony is ridiculous. There's no reason any person on God's green earth shouldn't be able to support themselves once divorced.

Genuine question. Before getting a divorce should said person make sure they can support themselves? Regardless of the situation ?

What about those who were “forced” to divorce so they haven’t had ample time to get back on their feet?

I receive alimony bc my exh has an affair, left and is now with his affair partner. I stay home (and will for another year) with our children. Since he wanted me to be able to live in the high cost of living area that we do, so he can see his children more easily, he ponied up more than child support. I will receive alimony until our youngest graduates. We made this agreement, not the courts. And exh can afford it.