Examples of alimony

[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.

And women who had scaled back work or stayed home when their kids were small, thus sacrificing career advancement, including salary increases? Ever read “The Price of Motherhood”?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. What a narrow minded perspective.

I supported xh and started a joint business venture with him which was very profitable (300-500K/yr net profit). Then after months of threats he quit working all together when kids stopped wanting to see him. I'm seeking unequal division of marital property. Screw him. I could've spent those years building my own career. He made the business unsalable. Now he won't divorce me. Its hell on all fronts.

[Anonymous]

I didn't want alimony because I didn't like the idea that it would stop if I remarried. I also didn't like that I might have to chase him down if he was late. So, I just took it as a lump sum as part of dividing up marital assets.

[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.

Her standard of living won't be the same as it was before. From $600,000 HHI to $156,00 is a bit of a drop.

I'm in a similar situation, although still happily married. My DH and I agreed years ago that life was too difficult with 2 kids and both of us having full-time, stressful jobs with long hours. We could afford to have me SAH, and that is what I have done. I have no current skills anymore, despite a once impressive resume and education. I doubt anyone would hire me for a 'real' job at my age, so I'd make very little if I went back to work. This is why alimony exists. And my standard of living would most certainly not stay the same, even with the alimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Her standard of living won't be the same as it was before. From $600,000 HHI to $156,00 is a bit of a drop.

I'm in a similar situation, although still happily married. My DH and I agreed years ago that life was too difficult with 2 kids and both of us having full-time, stressful jobs with long hours. We could afford to have me SAH, and that is what I have done. I have no current skills anymore, despite a once impressive resume and education. I doubt anyone would hire me for a 'real' job at my age, so I'd make very little if I went back to work. This is why alimony exists. And my standard of living would most certainly not stay the same, even with the alimony.

It might stay the same depending on your household net worth. If you don't have a lot of savings it would definitely be a problem. It is one of the many reasons why building net worth is so important.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. What a narrow minded perspective.

I supported xh and started a joint business venture with him which was very profitable (300-500K/yr net profit). Then after months of threats he quit working all together when kids stopped wanting to see him. I'm seeking unequal division of marital property. Screw him. I could've spent those years building my own career. He made the business unsalable. Now he won't divorce me. Its hell on all fronts.

The kids should not have the option of not seeing their dad. He got pissed when you turned the kids against him. Both of you need to focus on the kids and not use them as pawns.

[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.

And women who had scaled back work or stayed home when their kids were small, thus sacrificing career advancement, including salary increases? Ever read “The Price of Motherhood”?

You made that choice knowing it might bite you in the ass in the future. Team No Alimony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. What a narrow minded perspective.

I supported xh and started a joint business venture with him which was very profitable (300-500K/yr net profit). Then after months of threats he quit working all together when kids stopped wanting to see him. I'm seeking unequal division of marital property. Screw him. I could've spent those years building my own career. He made the business unsalable. Now he won't divorce me. Its hell on all fronts.

The kids should not have the option of not seeing their dad. He got pissed when you turned the kids against him. Both of you need to focus on the kids and not use them as pawns.

Well when he got arrested for slapping my 6 year old across the face enough was enough. Thanks though. I'll stick with supporting my kids feelings and experiences. Single parenting is hardly a dream. But they're safe and secure now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Exactly. What a narrow minded perspective.

I supported xh and started a joint business venture with him which was very profitable (300-500K/yr net profit). Then after months of threats he quit working all together when kids stopped wanting to see him. I'm seeking unequal division of marital property. Screw him. I could've spent those years building my own career. He made the business unsalable. Now he won't divorce me. Its hell on all fronts.

Weren’t you building your career with the business?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I’m sorry that happened to you. Truly. But you have no issue accepting his money while doing nothing to support yourself financially? Even when he’s made it clear that he doesn’t respect you? I just don’t get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Please tell us about all of the $600K per year jobs that are not stressful. The point remains: the law should require anybody receiving alimony to work at least as many hours/week as the person paying alimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Please tell us about all of the $600K per year jobs that are not stressful. The point remains: the law should require anybody receiving alimony to work at least as many hours/week as the person paying alimony.

If someone is working that much, someone has to be the default parent and do everything else. So, you are saying its better for the kids to be raised by strangers than a parent? If a couple makes an agreement that one parent stays home, then alimony is reasonable. It really depends on the situation. I have no issue my husband paid alimony to his ex but I do have an issue that she was the one who cheated and got basically life long alimony as she'll get 40+ years of his retirement when they were only married 10 years (this was on top of alimony and they were divorced before age 30).

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Her standard of living won't be the same as it was before. From $600,000 HHI to $156,00 is a bit of a drop.

I'm in a similar situation, although still happily married. My DH and I agreed years ago that life was too difficult with 2 kids and both of us having full-time, stressful jobs with long hours. We could afford to have me SAH, and that is what I have done. I have no current skills anymore, despite a once impressive resume and education. I doubt anyone would hire me for a 'real' job at my age, so I'd make very little if I went back to work. This is why alimony exists. And my standard of living would most certainly not stay the same, even with the alimony.

So what? Her standard of living SHOULD drop! Her former high standard of living was a benefit of marriage, which ended when the marriage ended.

You can be retrained to enter the workforce and support yourself. If you are educated and a hard worker, you will have no troubles getting a "real" job. Even if you get a couple dollars alimony, you should expect to be working full time, same as your ex husband. The courts should ensure that: it would be an epic injustice to expect one ex-spouse to work, while the other ex-spouse does NOT work. The courts should force any ex-spouse receiving alimony to work the same number of hours as the ex-spouse paying alimony. Even if that's a Walmart job, so long as the hours match. Anything less would be completely unfair and thank god these laws are being reformed.

[Anonymous]

As someone who left the marriage I insisted on it and upped it. I felt so damn guitly that I really wanted her to be able to stay in the house and keep life the same for the kids. She worked part time while married and now close to full time now (24 hours to 36 hours...12 hour shifts in nursing). This isn't uncommon...2 of my divorced friends also admit to writing bigger checks to ease things. There is so much guilt in divorce.

[Anonymous]

I could see alimony under certain circumstances for a tear or two. But for ten years or more? Ridiculous.