Predicting spousal support

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you wanted to work on your marriage but DH just decided not to and there was no abuse or substance abuse and he did this while you were supporting kids and household, get as much as you can from him. Don't go gently

Yes op by all means be a leach. Or put on your big girl pants like I did and work hard for your own money. I can assure you it’s way more satisfying. -a divorcee that didn’t take handouts.

As some have already said, it can be both. A woman is not a leech when she collects what is due to her. Marital property is not a handout. Or if it is like you claim, why does a man want a handout? It's like saying please loan me 10K and I'll pay you back... and when it's time to pay back, it's don't be a leech I want all the money for myself! The man can "work hard for his own money" once he's divorced and doesn't get free household work and childrearing. In fact if money was so important, he shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Sure, perhaps then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to have children either, but he'd have his money! See how that works?! You don't get kids raised to adults and then kick the woman out to the curb when the work is done.

You're arguing against a position nobody made.

Nobody said marital property is a handout. Most people support dividing marital assets. That's the $10,000 being repaid in your analogy.

The disagreement is over the additional the $100,000s paid over decades after the assets have already been divided and the marriage has already ended.

And your entire argument rests on an old stereotype: the selfless wife raising the children while the husband contributes little more than a paycheck.

That simply isn't reality for many families.

Millions of fathers work full time while also changing diapers, attending school events, coaching teams, helping with homework, cooking meals, cleaning the house, getting kids to appointments, and sharing custody after divorce. Pretending child rearing is something men merely receive from women is as outdated as claiming women belong in the kitchen.

Marriage isn't a pension plan. If two adults build a life together, they should divide the assets fairly when it ends. What many people object to is the idea that one capable adult is entitled to remain on the other's payroll for decades after the partnership is over.

By your logic, if money is so unimportant, why is lifelong access to someone else's income so important?

Just like the OP just said, it also accounts for lost income. If the woman is at home for 20 years, she lost 20 years of income and career advancement, and pension. If she divorces when she's 50-60, she cannot just waltz to a job as if nothing happened in-between. In the US, the system is set up like that. Men are able to earn a lot of money, but childcare is expensive, as is after-school care and health care. It's easy for you to say divide when it ends and bye! But you've worked continuously all this time, meaning not only did you earn money, you also advanced in your career. Were you to lose your job tomorrow, you most likely would find something else in 1-2 months. Not so if you've been out of workforce for 20 years. Have you helped your wife to find a career, maybe a VP in the company that you run? Start a business? Give her shares of your company? I bet if that was the case, she'd not need your alimony.

In Europe, things are set up differently. Almost nobody is able to earn so much, because taxes take a large proportion of the salary. But that means that schools, daycare, healthcare etc are free, as is university education for good students. Men and women both work, because in order to have healthcare and pension, you have to earn your own, you cannot use your spouse's. But then kids are taken care of for free during the time that parents are at work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you wanted to work on your marriage but DH just decided not to and there was no abuse or substance abuse and he did this while you were supporting kids and household, get as much as you can from him. Don't go gently

Yes op by all means be a leach. Or put on your big girl pants like I did and work hard for your own money. I can assure you it’s way more satisfying. -a divorcee that didn’t take handouts.

As some have already said, it can be both. A woman is not a leech when she collects what is due to her. Marital property is not a handout. Or if it is like you claim, why does a man want a handout? It's like saying please loan me 10K and I'll pay you back... and when it's time to pay back, it's don't be a leech I want all the money for myself! The man can "work hard for his own money" once he's divorced and doesn't get free household work and childrearing. In fact if money was so important, he shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Sure, perhaps then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to have children either, but he'd have his money! See how that works?! You don't get kids raised to adults and then kick the woman out to the curb when the work is done.

You're arguing against a position nobody made.

Nobody said marital property is a handout. Most people support dividing marital assets. That's the $10,000 being repaid in your analogy.

The disagreement is over the additional the $100,000s paid over decades after the assets have already been divided and the marriage has already ended.

And your entire argument rests on an old stereotype: the selfless wife raising the children while the husband contributes little more than a paycheck.

That simply isn't reality for many families.

Millions of fathers work full time while also changing diapers, attending school events, coaching teams, helping with homework, cooking meals, cleaning the house, getting kids to appointments, and sharing custody after divorce. Pretending child rearing is something men merely receive from women is as outdated as claiming women belong in the kitchen.

Marriage isn't a pension plan. If two adults build a life together, they should divide the assets fairly when it ends. What many people object to is the idea that one capable adult is entitled to remain on the other's payroll for decades after the partnership is over.

By your logic, if money is so unimportant, why is lifelong access to someone else's income so important?

Just like the OP just said, it also accounts for lost income. If the woman is at home for 20 years, she lost 20 years of income and career advancement, and pension. If she divorces when she's 50-60, she cannot just waltz to a job as if nothing happened in-between. In the US, the system is set up like that. Men are able to earn a lot of money, but childcare is expensive, as is after-school care and health care. It's easy for you to say divide when it ends and bye! But you've worked continuously all this time, meaning not only did you earn money, you also advanced in your career. Were you to lose your job tomorrow, you most likely would find something else in 1-2 months. Not so if you've been out of workforce for 20 years. Have you helped your wife to find a career, maybe a VP in the company that you run? Start a business? Give her shares of your company? I bet if that was the case, she'd not need your alimony.

In Europe, things are set up differently. Almost nobody is able to earn so much, because taxes take a large proportion of the salary. But that means that schools, daycare, healthcare etc are free, as is university education for good students. Men and women both work, because in order to have healthcare and pension, you have to earn your own, you cannot use your spouse's. But then kids are taken care of for free during the time that parents are at work.

You talk about staying home like it was something that was done to you instead of a choice you made. Nobody forced you to stay home. That's like buying a house and then claiming you lost money because you didn't put it in the stock market. You didn't lose that money, you made a different choice and got something in return.

And honestly, the 20 year example is a bit extreme. Kids eventually go to school and become more independent. If both parents are contributing, there's usually nothing stopping someone from returning to work long before 20 years have passed. At some point, continuing to stay home is a choice too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you wanted to work on your marriage but DH just decided not to and there was no abuse or substance abuse and he did this while you were supporting kids and household, get as much as you can from him. Don't go gently

Yes op by all means be a leach. Or put on your big girl pants like I did and work hard for your own money. I can assure you it’s way more satisfying. -a divorcee that didn’t take handouts.

As some have already said, it can be both. A woman is not a leech when she collects what is due to her. Marital property is not a handout. Or if it is like you claim, why does a man want a handout? It's like saying please loan me 10K and I'll pay you back... and when it's time to pay back, it's don't be a leech I want all the money for myself! The man can "work hard for his own money" once he's divorced and doesn't get free household work and childrearing. In fact if money was so important, he shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Sure, perhaps then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to have children either, but he'd have his money! See how that works?! You don't get kids raised to adults and then kick the woman out to the curb when the work is done.

You're arguing against a position nobody made.

Nobody said marital property is a handout. Most people support dividing marital assets. That's the $10,000 being repaid in your analogy.

The disagreement is over the additional the $100,000s paid over decades after the assets have already been divided and the marriage has already ended.

And your entire argument rests on an old stereotype: the selfless wife raising the children while the husband contributes little more than a paycheck.

That simply isn't reality for many families.

Millions of fathers work full time while also changing diapers, attending school events, coaching teams, helping with homework, cooking meals, cleaning the house, getting kids to appointments, and sharing custody after divorce. Pretending child rearing is something men merely receive from women is as outdated as claiming women belong in the kitchen.

Marriage isn't a pension plan. If two adults build a life together, they should divide the assets fairly when it ends. What many people object to is the idea that one capable adult is entitled to remain on the other's payroll for decades after the partnership is over.

By your logic, if money is so unimportant, why is lifelong access to someone else's income so important?

Just like the OP just said, it also accounts for lost income. If the woman is at home for 20 years, she lost 20 years of income and career advancement, and pension. If she divorces when she's 50-60, she cannot just waltz to a job as if nothing happened in-between. In the US, the system is set up like that. Men are able to earn a lot of money, but childcare is expensive, as is after-school care and health care. It's easy for you to say divide when it ends and bye! But you've worked continuously all this time, meaning not only did you earn money, you also advanced in your career. Were you to lose your job tomorrow, you most likely would find something else in 1-2 months. Not so if you've been out of workforce for 20 years. Have you helped your wife to find a career, maybe a VP in the company that you run? Start a business? Give her shares of your company? I bet if that was the case, she'd not need your alimony.

In Europe, things are set up differently. Almost nobody is able to earn so much, because taxes take a large proportion of the salary. But that means that schools, daycare, healthcare etc are free, as is university education for good students. Men and women both work, because in order to have healthcare and pension, you have to earn your own, you cannot use your spouse's. But then kids are taken care of for free during the time that parents are at work.

You talk about staying home like it was something that was done to you instead of a choice you made. Nobody forced you to stay home. That's like buying a house and then claiming you lost money because you didn't put it in the stock market. You didn't lose that money, you made a different choice and got something in return.

And honestly, the 20 year example is a bit extreme. Kids eventually go to school and become more independent. If both parents are contributing, there's usually nothing stopping someone from returning to work long before 20 years have passed. At some point, continuing to stay home is a choice too.

You obviously don't have kids or had someone else raise them for you. 20 years is not extreme, it's quite common with multiple kids. It's not a choice when a woman is the one who is pregnant (9 months) and then goes through birth and breastfeeds. What is it with clueless men? You think there was as choice who was carrying a child and breastfeeds? Then infants usually don't sleep for several years throughout the night, they also need feeding at night. Never knew, right? Once the first infant is a toddler, lots of families expand. And so on and so on. In the US kids become actually more independent when they start driving, so around the age 16. As lots of women have already said: if you don't want to share what you earn, don't get married nor have kids. Easy. And get a vasectomy. It's a choice you make and for you it's actually a choice.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you wanted to work on your marriage but DH just decided not to and there was no abuse or substance abuse and he did this while you were supporting kids and household, get as much as you can from him. Don't go gently

Yes op by all means be a leach. Or put on your big girl pants like I did and work hard for your own money. I can assure you it’s way more satisfying. -a divorcee that didn’t take handouts.

As some have already said, it can be both. A woman is not a leech when she collects what is due to her. Marital property is not a handout. Or if it is like you claim, why does a man want a handout? It's like saying please loan me 10K and I'll pay you back... and when it's time to pay back, it's don't be a leech I want all the money for myself! The man can "work hard for his own money" once he's divorced and doesn't get free household work and childrearing. In fact if money was so important, he shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Sure, perhaps then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to have children either, but he'd have his money! See how that works?! You don't get kids raised to adults and then kick the woman out to the curb when the work is done.

You're arguing against a position nobody made.

Nobody said marital property is a handout. Most people support dividing marital assets. That's the $10,000 being repaid in your analogy.

The disagreement is over the additional the $100,000s paid over decades after the assets have already been divided and the marriage has already ended.

And your entire argument rests on an old stereotype: the selfless wife raising the children while the husband contributes little more than a paycheck.

That simply isn't reality for many families.

Millions of fathers work full time while also changing diapers, attending school events, coaching teams, helping with homework, cooking meals, cleaning the house, getting kids to appointments, and sharing custody after divorce. Pretending child rearing is something men merely receive from women is as outdated as claiming women belong in the kitchen.

Marriage isn't a pension plan. If two adults build a life together, they should divide the assets fairly when it ends. What many people object to is the idea that one capable adult is entitled to remain on the other's payroll for decades after the partnership is over.

By your logic, if money is so unimportant, why is lifelong access to someone else's income so important?

Just like the OP just said, it also accounts for lost income. If the woman is at home for 20 years, she lost 20 years of income and career advancement, and pension. If she divorces when she's 50-60, she cannot just waltz to a job as if nothing happened in-between. In the US, the system is set up like that. Men are able to earn a lot of money, but childcare is expensive, as is after-school care and health care. It's easy for you to say divide when it ends and bye! But you've worked continuously all this time, meaning not only did you earn money, you also advanced in your career. Were you to lose your job tomorrow, you most likely would find something else in 1-2 months. Not so if you've been out of workforce for 20 years. Have you helped your wife to find a career, maybe a VP in the company that you run? Start a business? Give her shares of your company? I bet if that was the case, she'd not need your alimony.

In Europe, things are set up differently. Almost nobody is able to earn so much, because taxes take a large proportion of the salary. But that means that schools, daycare, healthcare etc are free, as is university education for good students. Men and women both work, because in order to have healthcare and pension, you have to earn your own, you cannot use your spouse's. But then kids are taken care of for free during the time that parents are at work.

You talk about staying home like it was something that was done to you instead of a choice you made. Nobody forced you to stay home. That's like buying a house and then claiming you lost money because you didn't put it in the stock market. You didn't lose that money, you made a different choice and got something in return.

And honestly, the 20 year example is a bit extreme. Kids eventually go to school and become more independent. If both parents are contributing, there's usually nothing stopping someone from returning to work long before 20 years have passed. At some point, continuing to stay home is a choice too.

You obviously don't have kids or had someone else raise them for you. 20 years is not extreme, it's quite common with multiple kids. It's not a choice when a woman is the one who is pregnant (9 months) and then goes through birth and breastfeeds. What is it with clueless men? You think there was as choice who was carrying a child and breastfeeds? Then infants usually don't sleep for several years throughout the night, they also need feeding at night. Never knew, right? Once the first infant is a toddler, lots of families expand. And so on and so on. In the US kids become actually more independent when they start driving, so around the age 16. As lots of women have already said: if you don't want to share what you earn, don't get married nor have kids. Easy. And get a vasectomy. It's a choice you make and for you it's actually a choice.

The 50s called. They want their gender roles back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here. By my quick calculation, in the years I have been part time, I have probably lost at least a million in income, plus the interest I would have earned by investing.

And it most certainly would have been more because I would have advanced to higher level positions.

I will have no shame taking his money.

Problem solved.
Best of luck to you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you wanted to work on your marriage but DH just decided not to and there was no abuse or substance abuse and he did this while you were supporting kids and household, get as much as you can from him. Don't go gently

Yes op by all means be a leach. Or put on your big girl pants like I did and work hard for your own money. I can assure you it’s way more satisfying. -a divorcee that didn’t take handouts.

As some have already said, it can be both. A woman is not a leech when she collects what is due to her. Marital property is not a handout. Or if it is like you claim, why does a man want a handout? It's like saying please loan me 10K and I'll pay you back... and when it's time to pay back, it's don't be a leech I want all the money for myself! The man can "work hard for his own money" once he's divorced and doesn't get free household work and childrearing. In fact if money was so important, he shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Sure, perhaps then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to have children either, but he'd have his money! See how that works?! You don't get kids raised to adults and then kick the woman out to the curb when the work is done.

You're arguing against a position nobody made.

Nobody said marital property is a handout. Most people support dividing marital assets. That's the $10,000 being repaid in your analogy.

The disagreement is over the additional the $100,000s paid over decades after the assets have already been divided and the marriage has already ended.

And your entire argument rests on an old stereotype: the selfless wife raising the children while the husband contributes little more than a paycheck.

That simply isn't reality for many families.

Millions of fathers work full time while also changing diapers, attending school events, coaching teams, helping with homework, cooking meals, cleaning the house, getting kids to appointments, and sharing custody after divorce. Pretending child rearing is something men merely receive from women is as outdated as claiming women belong in the kitchen.

Marriage isn't a pension plan. If two adults build a life together, they should divide the assets fairly when it ends. What many people object to is the idea that one capable adult is entitled to remain on the other's payroll for decades after the partnership is over.

By your logic, if money is so unimportant, why is lifelong access to someone else's income so important?

Just like the OP just said, it also accounts for lost income. If the woman is at home for 20 years, she lost 20 years of income and career advancement, and pension. If she divorces when she's 50-60, she cannot just waltz to a job as if nothing happened in-between. In the US, the system is set up like that. Men are able to earn a lot of money, but childcare is expensive, as is after-school care and health care. It's easy for you to say divide when it ends and bye! But you've worked continuously all this time, meaning not only did you earn money, you also advanced in your career. Were you to lose your job tomorrow, you most likely would find something else in 1-2 months. Not so if you've been out of workforce for 20 years. Have you helped your wife to find a career, maybe a VP in the company that you run? Start a business? Give her shares of your company? I bet if that was the case, she'd not need your alimony.

In Europe, things are set up differently. Almost nobody is able to earn so much, because taxes take a large proportion of the salary. But that means that schools, daycare, healthcare etc are free, as is university education for good students. Men and women both work, because in order to have healthcare and pension, you have to earn your own, you cannot use your spouse's. But then kids are taken care of for free during the time that parents are at work.

This. So many American women lament we don’t have free daycare and parental leave like European countries but don’t understand WHY they offer these benefits.

Most European women are truly on their own for healthcare and retirement. Many European men don’t share finances. Women are expected to support themselves and make do with government benefits. Women don’t step out of the workforce for decades, including the equivalent of UMC people. Instead you take whatever the government gives you and that’s that.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you wanted to work on your marriage but DH just decided not to and there was no abuse or substance abuse and he did this while you were supporting kids and household, get as much as you can from him. Don't go gently

Yes op by all means be a leach. Or put on your big girl pants like I did and work hard for your own money. I can assure you it’s way more satisfying. -a divorcee that didn’t take handouts.

As some have already said, it can be both. A woman is not a leech when she collects what is due to her. Marital property is not a handout. Or if it is like you claim, why does a man want a handout? It's like saying please loan me 10K and I'll pay you back... and when it's time to pay back, it's don't be a leech I want all the money for myself! The man can "work hard for his own money" once he's divorced and doesn't get free household work and childrearing. In fact if money was so important, he shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Sure, perhaps then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to have children either, but he'd have his money! See how that works?! You don't get kids raised to adults and then kick the woman out to the curb when the work is done.

You're arguing against a position nobody made.

Nobody said marital property is a handout. Most people support dividing marital assets. That's the $10,000 being repaid in your analogy.

The disagreement is over the additional the $100,000s paid over decades after the assets have already been divided and the marriage has already ended.

And your entire argument rests on an old stereotype: the selfless wife raising the children while the husband contributes little more than a paycheck.

That simply isn't reality for many families.

Millions of fathers work full time while also changing diapers, attending school events, coaching teams, helping with homework, cooking meals, cleaning the house, getting kids to appointments, and sharing custody after divorce. Pretending child rearing is something men merely receive from women is as outdated as claiming women belong in the kitchen.

Marriage isn't a pension plan. If two adults build a life together, they should divide the assets fairly when it ends. What many people object to is the idea that one capable adult is entitled to remain on the other's payroll for decades after the partnership is over.

By your logic, if money is so unimportant, why is lifelong access to someone else's income so important?

Just like the OP just said, it also accounts for lost income. If the woman is at home for 20 years, she lost 20 years of income and career advancement, and pension. If she divorces when she's 50-60, she cannot just waltz to a job as if nothing happened in-between. In the US, the system is set up like that. Men are able to earn a lot of money, but childcare is expensive, as is after-school care and health care. It's easy for you to say divide when it ends and bye! But you've worked continuously all this time, meaning not only did you earn money, you also advanced in your career. Were you to lose your job tomorrow, you most likely would find something else in 1-2 months. Not so if you've been out of workforce for 20 years. Have you helped your wife to find a career, maybe a VP in the company that you run? Start a business? Give her shares of your company? I bet if that was the case, she'd not need your alimony.

In Europe, things are set up differently. Almost nobody is able to earn so much, because taxes take a large proportion of the salary. But that means that schools, daycare, healthcare etc are free, as is university education for good students. Men and women both work, because in order to have healthcare and pension, you have to earn your own, you cannot use your spouse's. But then kids are taken care of for free during the time that parents are at work.

You talk about staying home like it was something that was done to you instead of a choice you made. Nobody forced you to stay home. That's like buying a house and then claiming you lost money because you didn't put it in the stock market. You didn't lose that money, you made a different choice and got something in return.

And honestly, the 20 year example is a bit extreme. Kids eventually go to school and become more independent. If both parents are contributing, there's usually nothing stopping someone from returning to work long before 20 years have passed. At some point, continuing to stay home is a choice too.

You obviously don't have kids or had someone else raise them for you. 20 years is not extreme, it's quite common with multiple kids. It's not a choice when a woman is the one who is pregnant (9 months) and then goes through birth and breastfeeds. What is it with clueless men? You think there was as choice who was carrying a child and breastfeeds? Then infants usually don't sleep for several years throughout the night, they also need feeding at night. Never knew, right? Once the first infant is a toddler, lots of families expand. And so on and so on. In the US kids become actually more independent when they start driving, so around the age 16. As lots of women have already said: if you don't want to share what you earn, don't get married nor have kids. Easy. And get a vasectomy. It's a choice you make and for you it's actually a choice.

Strong disagree here. Women can work and many do. I’m guessing OP could have taken some parental leave to get through the infant stage.

It’s simply not smart to earn $0. It’s not that difficult to have kids and a job. It’s why most women go to work.

It’s why not everyone is sympathetic for a woman who decides to not have a job for decades. The same type of woman often thinks she’s better than the working moms and doesn’t want “strangers” watching her kids. She thinks it’s better for the woman to stay home even though it doesn’t matter. She thinks her husband wants her to stay home when really he DGAF. Then decades later she wants a payout.

See the bolded comment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you wanted to work on your marriage but DH just decided not to and there was no abuse or substance abuse and he did this while you were supporting kids and household, get as much as you can from him. Don't go gently

Yes op by all means be a leach. Or put on your big girl pants like I did and work hard for your own money. I can assure you it’s way more satisfying. -a divorcee that didn’t take handouts.

As some have already said, it can be both. A woman is not a leech when she collects what is due to her. Marital property is not a handout. Or if it is like you claim, why does a man want a handout? It's like saying please loan me 10K and I'll pay you back... and when it's time to pay back, it's don't be a leech I want all the money for myself! The man can "work hard for his own money" once he's divorced and doesn't get free household work and childrearing. In fact if money was so important, he shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Sure, perhaps then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to have children either, but he'd have his money! See how that works?! You don't get kids raised to adults and then kick the woman out to the curb when the work is done.

You're arguing against a position nobody made.

Nobody said marital property is a handout. Most people support dividing marital assets. That's the $10,000 being repaid in your analogy.

The disagreement is over the additional the $100,000s paid over decades after the assets have already been divided and the marriage has already ended.

And your entire argument rests on an old stereotype: the selfless wife raising the children while the husband contributes little more than a paycheck.

That simply isn't reality for many families.

Millions of fathers work full time while also changing diapers, attending school events, coaching teams, helping with homework, cooking meals, cleaning the house, getting kids to appointments, and sharing custody after divorce. Pretending child rearing is something men merely receive from women is as outdated as claiming women belong in the kitchen.

Marriage isn't a pension plan. If two adults build a life together, they should divide the assets fairly when it ends. What many people object to is the idea that one capable adult is entitled to remain on the other's payroll for decades after the partnership is over.

By your logic, if money is so unimportant, why is lifelong access to someone else's income so important?

Just like the OP just said, it also accounts for lost income. If the woman is at home for 20 years, she lost 20 years of income and career advancement, and pension. If she divorces when she's 50-60, she cannot just waltz to a job as if nothing happened in-between. In the US, the system is set up like that. Men are able to earn a lot of money, but childcare is expensive, as is after-school care and health care. It's easy for you to say divide when it ends and bye! But you've worked continuously all this time, meaning not only did you earn money, you also advanced in your career. Were you to lose your job tomorrow, you most likely would find something else in 1-2 months. Not so if you've been out of workforce for 20 years. Have you helped your wife to find a career, maybe a VP in the company that you run? Start a business? Give her shares of your company? I bet if that was the case, she'd not need your alimony.

In Europe, things are set up differently. Almost nobody is able to earn so much, because taxes take a large proportion of the salary. But that means that schools, daycare, healthcare etc are free, as is university education for good students. Men and women both work, because in order to have healthcare and pension, you have to earn your own, you cannot use your spouse's. But then kids are taken care of for free during the time that parents are at work.

You talk about staying home like it was something that was done to you instead of a choice you made. Nobody forced you to stay home. That's like buying a house and then claiming you lost money because you didn't put it in the stock market. You didn't lose that money, you made a different choice and got something in return.

And honestly, the 20 year example is a bit extreme. Kids eventually go to school and become more independent. If both parents are contributing, there's usually nothing stopping someone from returning to work long before 20 years have passed. At some point, continuing to stay home is a choice too.

It is a choice made by both partners.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you wanted to work on your marriage but DH just decided not to and there was no abuse or substance abuse and he did this while you were supporting kids and household, get as much as you can from him. Don't go gently

Yes op by all means be a leach. Or put on your big girl pants like I did and work hard for your own money. I can assure you it’s way more satisfying. -a divorcee that didn’t take handouts.

As some have already said, it can be both. A woman is not a leech when she collects what is due to her. Marital property is not a handout. Or if it is like you claim, why does a man want a handout? It's like saying please loan me 10K and I'll pay you back... and when it's time to pay back, it's don't be a leech I want all the money for myself! The man can "work hard for his own money" once he's divorced and doesn't get free household work and childrearing. In fact if money was so important, he shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Sure, perhaps then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to have children either, but he'd have his money! See how that works?! You don't get kids raised to adults and then kick the woman out to the curb when the work is done.

You're arguing against a position nobody made.

Nobody said marital property is a handout. Most people support dividing marital assets. That's the $10,000 being repaid in your analogy.

The disagreement is over the additional the $100,000s paid over decades after the assets have already been divided and the marriage has already ended.

And your entire argument rests on an old stereotype: the selfless wife raising the children while the husband contributes little more than a paycheck.

That simply isn't reality for many families.

Millions of fathers work full time while also changing diapers, attending school events, coaching teams, helping with homework, cooking meals, cleaning the house, getting kids to appointments, and sharing custody after divorce. Pretending child rearing is something men merely receive from women is as outdated as claiming women belong in the kitchen.

Marriage isn't a pension plan. If two adults build a life together, they should divide the assets fairly when it ends. What many people object to is the idea that one capable adult is entitled to remain on the other's payroll for decades after the partnership is over.

By your logic, if money is so unimportant, why is lifelong access to someone else's income so important?

Just like the OP just said, it also accounts for lost income. If the woman is at home for 20 years, she lost 20 years of income and career advancement, and pension. If she divorces when she's 50-60, she cannot just waltz to a job as if nothing happened in-between. In the US, the system is set up like that. Men are able to earn a lot of money, but childcare is expensive, as is after-school care and health care. It's easy for you to say divide when it ends and bye! But you've worked continuously all this time, meaning not only did you earn money, you also advanced in your career. Were you to lose your job tomorrow, you most likely would find something else in 1-2 months. Not so if you've been out of workforce for 20 years. Have you helped your wife to find a career, maybe a VP in the company that you run? Start a business? Give her shares of your company? I bet if that was the case, she'd not need your alimony.

In Europe, things are set up differently. Almost nobody is able to earn so much, because taxes take a large proportion of the salary. But that means that schools, daycare, healthcare etc are free, as is university education for good students. Men and women both work, because in order to have healthcare and pension, you have to earn your own, you cannot use your spouse's. But then kids are taken care of for free during the time that parents are at work.

You talk about staying home like it was something that was done to you instead of a choice you made. Nobody forced you to stay home. That's like buying a house and then claiming you lost money because you didn't put it in the stock market. You didn't lose that money, you made a different choice and got something in return.

And honestly, the 20 year example is a bit extreme. Kids eventually go to school and become more independent. If both parents are contributing, there's usually nothing stopping someone from returning to work long before 20 years have passed. At some point, continuing to stay home is a choice too.

It is a choice made by both partners.

A decision can be joint and still be an individual choice. Your spouse and other factors can influence your decision, but at the end of the day it's still your decision. You weren't forced into it, and plenty of women make different choices.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Op here. By my quick calculation, in the years I have been part time, I have probably lost at least a million in income, plus the interest I would have earned by investing.

And it most certainly would have been more because I would have advanced to higher level positions.

I will have no shame taking his money.

You go girl!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, if you wanted to work on your marriage but DH just decided not to and there was no abuse or substance abuse and he did this while you were supporting kids and household, get as much as you can from him. Don't go gently

Yes op by all means be a leach. Or put on your big girl pants like I did and work hard for your own money. I can assure you it’s way more satisfying. -a divorcee that didn’t take handouts.

As some have already said, it can be both. A woman is not a leech when she collects what is due to her. Marital property is not a handout. Or if it is like you claim, why does a man want a handout? It's like saying please loan me 10K and I'll pay you back... and when it's time to pay back, it's don't be a leech I want all the money for myself! The man can "work hard for his own money" once he's divorced and doesn't get free household work and childrearing. In fact if money was so important, he shouldn't have gotten married in the first place. Sure, perhaps then he wouldn't have had the opportunity to have children either, but he'd have his money! See how that works?! You don't get kids raised to adults and then kick the woman out to the curb when the work is done.

You're arguing against a position nobody made.

Nobody said marital property is a handout. Most people support dividing marital assets. That's the $10,000 being repaid in your analogy.

The disagreement is over the additional the $100,000s paid over decades after the assets have already been divided and the marriage has already ended.

And your entire argument rests on an old stereotype: the selfless wife raising the children while the husband contributes little more than a paycheck.

That simply isn't reality for many families.

Millions of fathers work full time while also changing diapers, attending school events, coaching teams, helping with homework, cooking meals, cleaning the house, getting kids to appointments, and sharing custody after divorce. Pretending child rearing is something men merely receive from women is as outdated as claiming women belong in the kitchen.

Marriage isn't a pension plan. If two adults build a life together, they should divide the assets fairly when it ends. What many people object to is the idea that one capable adult is entitled to remain on the other's payroll for decades after the partnership is over.

By your logic, if money is so unimportant, why is lifelong access to someone else's income so important?

Just like the OP just said, it also accounts for lost income. If the woman is at home for 20 years, she lost 20 years of income and career advancement, and pension. If she divorces when she's 50-60, she cannot just waltz to a job as if nothing happened in-between. In the US, the system is set up like that. Men are able to earn a lot of money, but childcare is expensive, as is after-school care and health care. It's easy for you to say divide when it ends and bye! But you've worked continuously all this time, meaning not only did you earn money, you also advanced in your career. Were you to lose your job tomorrow, you most likely would find something else in 1-2 months. Not so if you've been out of workforce for 20 years. Have you helped your wife to find a career, maybe a VP in the company that you run? Start a business? Give her shares of your company? I bet if that was the case, she'd not need your alimony.

In Europe, things are set up differently. Almost nobody is able to earn so much, because taxes take a large proportion of the salary. But that means that schools, daycare, healthcare etc are free, as is university education for good students. Men and women both work, because in order to have healthcare and pension, you have to earn your own, you cannot use your spouse's. But then kids are taken care of for free during the time that parents are at work.

No, it doesn't. This isn't too far derived from the way a lot of women think -- if they work, there is "my income" and then "our income." But for the men, it's only ever "our income."

He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well.

[Anonymous]

Get. Every. Penny.

I’m a professional woman and a mother and I always advise other women to keep their jobs/not risk SAHM. But if you do and wind ip divorced? Aim high and keep pushing.

Because the reality is this: the employment market is not going to make up for your husband’s stinginess. Like every other hiring manager I know, I am absolutely allergic to even a whiff of household instability that will make an unreliable employee. So I might hire a divorced SAHM for an $85k admin job (though prefer a recent grad with growth potential...)but theres no $350,000 where I’m also going to risk being high and dry when her ex flakes out on pickup again.

So where does the rest of the income need to come from to support this woman and her children? Alimony. Child support. So aim high and keep fighting.

[Anonymous]

"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:"He experienced the opportunity cost of her not working as well. Her absence from the workforce was an opportunity cost for the HOUSEHOLD INCOME. So, he already paid for that as well."

+100
This is a fact that is never acknowledged! Instead of them splitting assets from 10 years of him earning $100k and her earning $60k, he only gets half of the assets resulting from $100k. He also lost out on opportunities to take a chance on potentially better paying jobs or taking time out to get more training since he had to hold down the finances singlehandedly.

He should’ve thought about that before letting his d!ck wander.

[Anonymous]

"He should’ve thought about that before letting his d!ck wander."

Huh? News flash: Some women cheat, become alcoholics, or are abusive... just like some men.