Does alimony still happen in VA?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And then you still wonder why men are hesitant to get married.

I don’t know any high earners who are not married. I know many lower earners who are not. This comports with the stats.

That's pretty unusual not to know any. Do you have a very small social circle?

In any event the rates are decreasing among the younger generation, even among high earners. I think they are realizing it doesn't make a lot of sense.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe it’s not working for you if you are so bitter and angry. Maybe you wish you could be home more and not so stretched. Why are you so triggered by women not working?

I am glad my mom worked. She hated being a parent and like you bragged about all she did but in reality it was very little. If you ask her she was super mom. She was very different in reality. I did the cooking and cleaning. When I turned 16 she made me get a license to grocery shop and do her errands. She bitterly complained about work. And, very controlling with money.

I am so glad I am home as I have a really good relationship with my kids. Me being home allows my husband to work and devote every evening and weekend to us. He’s a great dad.

DP. I think you need to work out your issues with your mom. I'm sorry. That sounds hard.

You cannot reason with the unreasonable. She's hasn't been much of a mom to me in years, nor a grandma, the rare occasion I've needed her. I got lucky and had a wonderful MIL who really loved me like her own.

Its great for women to work, if that's what they want and choose. My mom hates the fact I'm home but has never once offered to help out in an emergency, including when I was hospitalized. I'm really grateful for a husband who told me I have the choice and encouraged me to choose vs. being forced to work based off my families beliefs. I hope other women are in the same position to choose. I worked for years prior to having kids and I know what I'm missing.

Women demanding other women work, especially those with nannies, preschool, housekeepers, lawn services are very out of touch with most SAHM's and why they do it. They should try working full time without a nanny and only having day care and still having to cook, clean, grocery shop (no delivery as you are on a budget), no lawn services and DIY the house and let us know how easy its to accomplish.

And, sadly, when we die, what we do for a living for most of us has very little impact and we are replaceable. When we die, our legacy is our kids and how they turn out. I care about raising good kids who will in term be good spouses and parents to their kids.

[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.

+1 People, there are a lot of good options out there in the world of work. Stop telling yourselves you can only make 50k. Cruise LinkedIN. Look at career trajectories. Set your sights higher. I quadrupled my income over the past 3 years from 50k to 200k+, I WFH, gave flexibility in my hours, and I do not have a graduate degree or other credential, just a bachelors from a state school. It is currently a great time for job seekers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:What is the calculation typically in long term marriages? Does it go on forever?

If the couple is older and the wife is unemployed and has limited options. My friend got it for life unless she remarried because she was on a disability. Otherwise alimony is usually temporary.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Instead of a SAH spouse, you hired a nanny, gardner, housekeeper and others to do the work at home. How is it any different? Only difference is kids benefit from having a parent at home vs. being raised by a nanny who is a stranger.

Being big law and a high level working spouse, how many hours a week do you spend with your kids? Do you help with the homework every night? Cook them dinner? Take them to activities? Do bath, bedtime? Play with them? Teach them to read?

My husband and I both work high level jobs, but we have flexibility. Pick up kids from school, play with them, teach them to read, homework duty, home cooked family dinner every night, chauffeur to play dates and activities.

When they were younger I WAH with a nanny, I flexed my hours so nanny covered mostly nap times. Then when they were half day preschool age, dad did drop off and I saw them at lunch. Nap with nanny and an hour or two of playtime then we were back. I know many other couples in our situation — doctors, lawyers, professors, etc. WAH is being normalized and flexible hours also. When your kids sleep 7-7 it’s easy to put in time when they are asleep and see them a lot. Now the ones in elementary still sleep 10 hours but they are in school until 4:30. So it does not have to be the impossible thing people make it out to be. Depends on your career path.

Mine never slept that much but when you have a nanny till 5-6pm and they go to bed at 7 you are not seeing them as much as you want to believe. The difference is you are a high earner where you can afford a nanny and still bring home money. If you made $60-80k, could you have done the nanny and bring money home. Having a full time nanny makes the difference but why pay someone as much as you earn to care for your kids when you can yourself. Many don’t make your income.

You seem pretty attached to your narrative, so you probably don’t care that it doesn’t fit all. But you should at least get that childcare is both parent’s responsibility, the cost of childcare does not come out of one paycheck but should be considered as split 50/50 between both. Many women make that mistake when considering the trade offs.

I was lucky to be able to WAH for the first year of both my kid’s lives. I nursed on demand and saw every milestone. Due to COVID I have been WAH for almost two years now without childcare. One kid did not attend preschool the first year of the pandemic so we flexed our hours to be with them. Now I am able to do pick up at 12 and my spouse and I switch off afternoons. Pre-COVID when the kids were preschool age, our nanny was off by 4 or 4:30. I saw them at lunch, and I also would take mornings off to go to classes with them. I know other working parents who had similar schedules. Often the more senior you are the more you can make your own hours. Depends on the career, but it’s not the black and white thing you are making it out to be. There are a lot more options nowadays, I have seen a lot of arrangements from full SAHP to the kind of rigid hours you describe but many more fall somewhere in the middle.

You are stuck on your narrative. You had a full time nanny. Just because one parent is home does not mean the other is not involved. You have a high paying job which makes a huge difference. Why work yo pay a nanny your entire salary? It makes zero sense. Most people don’t have flexible jobs. I didn’t which was one of many reasons I quit.

Unless you have no outside options and very high care needs, SAH is rarely the best decision from a financial standpoint. After five years your children go to school. You are foregoing a lifetime of earnings and retirement contributions for a short period of time. I’m not sure why you keep comparing your take home to the nanny’s entire salary. You are only responsible for half the childcare, the other half comes from your partner’s salary if you want to count it like that.

As for time with child… let’s say both parents have a flexible schedule. Child wakes at 7 AM, is with one parent until getting dropped off at preschool at 8:30. Gets picked up by nanny at 12, sees the other parent for lunch. Goes for a nap and wakes up around 3. Nanny leaves at 4:30 and the parent who did not drop off is there. You’re telling me I should quit my job to see my kids for the hours of 3-4:30 PM on weekdays? I’m personally fine with my kids spending time with other people who can teach them new things. Our nannies were great fun and I learned a lot about good activities from them. If anything, my kids got less attention when we were home FT this past year because of the need to juggle chores. Many SAHPs also have a nanny, it’s called the tablet and it gets pulled out when mommy needs a break or needs to cook dinner or whatever. That’s just how it goes when one person is responsible for everything.

No, if I make less than we pay for child care how does it make sense to work? If my income is low and long hours I would not be home by schools end. You have a nice set up most don’t have.

Why do you care if a woman works or not? That is between her and her husband. You are not supporting her.

Many sahm don’t have a nanny. You have a nanny and housekeeper and live in a very different world than most and cannot even see that.

Again, it depends on your career trajectory. You could start out making $60k and triple or quadruple it within 10-15 years in some careers. It is absolutely worth the investment, if you look at the bigger picture. Many women I know start out paying their entire salary to get help for that reason. It doesn’t matter if you pay more than your salary for help at first so long as later salary makes up for it. I know women who come from very humble means and have worked up to be CEOs by doing exactly that. I know a lot of SAHMs who don’t have to work because of family money or husband’s income. That seems like a different world to me.

[Anonymous]

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.

That's it exactly. Alimony isn't going anywhere because of various situations. It could be health, older age, SN kids, etc. and the court addresses all these issues.

[Anonymous]

I got alimony for 5 years when I was 34 because I was unemployed. We had lived overseas for his job and I couldn't work.

[Anonymous]

The sad thing is all these women who insist their income was perpetually sized at only $50k a year and thus justified never going back to work.

Listen, if (as you all insist above) your husband is such a high earner that (a) you could stay home forever, (b) the courts would award alimony and (c) your staying home allowed him to be more financially successful than had you gone back to work….. then we are talking about high income households. So by definition I’m assuming in the dc area, we’re talking about families making at least $300k. Because there are tons of dc area jobs paying $200k working 9-5 hours for people with graduate degrees. So no reason to have a sahw at that income.

So your husband makes at least $300k. Which statistically means he is well educated, which also statistically means you are well educated. Statistically, you both graduated from college or grad school with similar earning potential.

But at some point, likely before kids (if your earnings were already so low by the time kids came around) you were cool letting your husband go to work every day why you took an extremely mommy track job with no earning potential. If you’re well educated, this likely means your job was pretty low key, low stress, easy hours, not so many responsibilities. The reason your earning potential sucks isn’t because you stayed home to take care of kids. It’s because you decided way before then that you didn’t want to work as hard as your husband.

You may feel comfortable with that decision because you like that your husband is willing to support you and let you be “happy” (as others have said above). But the reality is that there were never equal contributions in this type of marriage, and it’s just ethically off putting that the law still rewards women who do this.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So you're more concerned about the one that doesn't come out of your pocket than the one that does? 🤔

Do you not understand how taxes work? As a higher earner, I pay taxes to support other people’s services.

Spousal social security is especially egregious. The entire SS is premised on people paying in what they get out. The exception is spousal benefits who pay in zero. For an example, a lower income couple both working $40k would both get social security based on their individual contributions. So each would get probably $1000 a month in retirement. Which matches what each, individually, paid in. Meanwhile a guy with a sahw makes $80k, and over his career pays into SS the same amount that the other couple paid combined. When he retires, he gets $2000 a month (because he paid double what either of the people in the couple did), but his wife is entitled to the 50 percent spousal benefit. So gets another $1000. In short, first couple makes $80k and pays SS on that, and gets $2000. Second couple makes $80k and pays SS on that, and gets $3000. Who do you think pays for the non contributing wife’s extra $1000? We all do. It is literally welfare, paying her not to work. And offensive that a poor woman making $40k for an entire career gets the same payout as one who never worked a day in her life. Made sense in 1940 when women had no opportunity to work and died in poverty if their husbands didn’t have pensions. But now serves just as a cash outlay to UMC sahws.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And then you still wonder why men are hesitant to get married.

I don’t know any high earners who are not married. I know many lower earners who are not. This comports with the stats.

You don't know many people then. I know quite a few high earners who are single men. I also know a few who had horrible wives, divorced, lost everything, and then made even more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Maybe it’s not working for you if you are so bitter and angry. Maybe you wish you could be home more and not so stretched. Why are you so triggered by women not working?

I am glad my mom worked. She hated being a parent and like you bragged about all she did but in reality it was very little. If you ask her she was super mom. She was very different in reality. I did the cooking and cleaning. When I turned 16 she made me get a license to grocery shop and do her errands. She bitterly complained about work. And, very controlling with money.

I am so glad I am home as I have a really good relationship with my kids. Me being home allows my husband to work and devote every evening and weekend to us. He’s a great dad.

DP. I think you need to work out your issues with your mom. I'm sorry. That sounds hard.

You cannot reason with the unreasonable. She's hasn't been much of a mom to me in years, nor a grandma, the rare occasion I've needed her. I got lucky and had a wonderful MIL who really loved me like her own.

Its great for women to work, if that's what they want and choose. My mom hates the fact I'm home but has never once offered to help out in an emergency, including when I was hospitalized. I'm really grateful for a husband who told me I have the choice and encouraged me to choose vs. being forced to work based off my families beliefs. I hope other women are in the same position to choose. I worked for years prior to having kids and I know what I'm missing.

Women demanding other women work, especially those with nannies, preschool, housekeepers, lawn services are very out of touch with most SAHM's and why they do it. They should try working full time without a nanny and only having day care and still having to cook, clean, grocery shop (no delivery as you are on a budget), no lawn services and DIY the house and let us know how easy its to accomplish.

And, sadly, when we die, what we do for a living for most of us has very little impact and we are replaceable. When we die, our legacy is our kids and how they turn out. I care about raising good kids who will in term be good spouses and parents to their kids.

Gently, I think you still clearly have a lot to work out.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And then you still wonder why men are hesitant to get married.

I don’t know any high earners who are not married. I know many lower earners who are not. This comports with the stats.

That's pretty unusual not to know any. Do you have a very small social circle?

In any event the rates are decreasing among the younger generation, even among high earners. I think they are realizing it doesn't make a lot of sense.

Some have gotten divorced. All remarry fairly quickly (less than 2 years from divorce). Also comports with statistics. High earners are almost always married.

[Anonymous]

I sometimes wonder if marriage as a legal institution will just fade away. It doesn't make a lot of sense in many respects.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

So you're more concerned about the one that doesn't come out of your pocket than the one that does? 🤔

Do you not understand how taxes work? As a higher earner, I pay taxes to support other people’s services.

Spousal social security is especially egregious. The entire SS is premised on people paying in what they get out. The exception is spousal benefits who pay in zero. For an example, a lower income couple both working $40k would both get social security based on their individual contributions. So each would get probably $1000 a month in retirement. Which matches what each, individually, paid in. Meanwhile a guy with a sahw makes $80k, and over his career pays into SS the same amount that the other couple paid combined. When he retires, he gets $2000 a month (because he paid double what either of the people in the couple did), but his wife is entitled to the 50 percent spousal benefit. So gets another $1000. In short, first couple makes $80k and pays SS on that, and gets $2000. Second couple makes $80k and pays SS on that, and gets $3000. Who do you think pays for the non contributing wife’s extra $1000? We all do. It is literally welfare, paying her not to work. And offensive that a poor woman making $40k for an entire career gets the same payout as one who never worked a day in her life. Made sense in 1940 when women had no opportunity to work and died in poverty if their husbands didn’t have pensions. But now serves just as a cash outlay to UMC sahws.

Yeah. How does any of that respond to my question?