Ron DeSantis ends permanent alimony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:And yet, women will still vote for this (because I will let my husband sleep with whatever tart they want and keep the marriage intact)

“Tart”? Wtf.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. I have a hard time understanding why this is such a terrible thing. It feels like people are objecting because of who did it, not the actual substance.

Ding ding ding, we have a winner!

[Anonymous]

I think it’s a bad thing. I think it will penalize women that invest in running their family while their husband builds a career. I WFT and always have but have plenty of friends that stayed home as SAHMs for a long stint and are now back at lower paying jobs to stay flexible. This is part of how some marriages work. It should be possible to recognize that.

[Anonymous]

Poor Casey. Has he chosen her replacement yet?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good

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

I see both sides.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Sure. So the woman is either a sahm or making millions as a CEO because there are so many of them?

He benefited off her work and labor. He would not have been able to “build his empire” without her. There are no millions without her. Stop undervaluing “women’s work”. Stop the misogyny.

Bull crap x 10000. We all know mega rich dudes hire au pairs, nannies, house cleaners, financial advisors, day care, and even tutors. Ain’t no formerly rich so,a because if her husband worth permanent alimony. They could have gotten jobs while their nannies were doing everything. But no, they were too busy shopping and spending their ex-husband’s money on Louis Vuitton bags.

I realize that you are a barely literate idiot, but I’ll try again….
(While a man is building his empire) - meaning: he DOESN’T HAVE THE MONEY YET. she is staying home and doing everything. I understand that you lack empathy and imagination, so I’m trying to help you out. When you are building a business, you are often traveling constantly and working insane hours. That means mom is basically a single parent. He had the luxury to put in that kind of time, because she is handling literally everything else. There is an older generation of women where this applies.

[Anonymous]

As long as this only affects agreements going forward, I wonder if it is intended to nudge things a particular way.

1. Make marriage more appealing to men who would have less to lose if it goes awry
2. Make divorce less appealing to women who would have less to gain

I’m not sure it will have the intended effect though. Women already are waking up to the fact that marriage isn’t worth it in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as this only affects agreements going forward, I wonder if it is intended to nudge things a particular way.

1. Make marriage more appealing to men who would have less to lose if it goes awry
2. Make divorce less appealing to women who would have less to gain

I’m not sure it will have the intended effect though. Women already are waking up to the fact that marriage isn’t worth it in the first place.

Really?
Not in my world.

[Anonymous]

It's bizarre to me that no one on this thread has mentioned that Alimony increasingly goes to men who have failed to launch in their careers.

It's a relief to me that no one has (yet) weighed in to call this an attack on LGBTQI+ rights.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

I'm sure members of the 'Moms for Liberty' chapter of Florida don't mind, do they ?


“The so-called party of ‘family values’ has just contributed to erosion of the institution of marriage in Florida,” a critic said about the 2023 bill. https://www.tallahassee.com/story/news/politics/2023/07/01/desantis-signs-florida-alimony-overhaul-after-years-of-vetoes/70375186007/

another reason to vote for DeSantis

[Anonymous]

Why should alimony be permanent? Seems like a rule made way before modern times. Women are making more than men now and they should be happy with this rule.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:
Why should alimony be permanent? Seems like a rule made way before modern times. Women are making more than men now and they should be happy with this rule.

The initial concern was for older women, but this legislation seems to protect them. Correct?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:As long as this only affects agreements going forward, I wonder if it is intended to nudge things a particular way.

1. Make marriage more appealing to men who would have less to lose if it goes awry
2. Make divorce less appealing to women who would have less to gain

I’m not sure it will have the intended effect though. Women already are waking up to the fact that marriage isn’t worth it in the first place.

I had similar thoughts.

[Anonymous]

Well this is fantastic news for younger women who out earn their husbands. No man will see alimony. I know many younger couple where dad stays home with the kids because mom is a doctor or lawyer.

This will hurt women who were SAHMs. Wonder if some are rethinking their animosity towards working moms?!

[Anonymous]

Very few people are awarded permanent alimony now. Now it’s only awarded in cases where there was a long term marriage and there’s a large disparity in earning potential (not just prior earnings), typically when a couple has lived the lifestyle of one parent staying home while the other one earns a most/all of the income, for a substantial period of time.

In a case where a couple has been married for 7 years and they have two children (let’s say 5 and 2), and when the first kid was born, the man earned $250,000 and the woman earned $175,000, but she dropped out of the workforce to be a SAHM, and the man now earns $320,000, but now they’re divorcing, the woman will get some child support (assuming she’ll have custody of the kids at least half the time) and might get alimony for a brief period until she’s back in the workforce, but she’s finished being a SAHM and will be expected to earn a salary commensurate with her previous earning history. She would not be able to take on a part-time hobby job and receive alimony that allows her to maintain the same lifestyle she enjoyed while married even in the short term, let alone indefinitely.

Permanent alimony is becoming rarer and rarer. You’re mostly going to see it where people were married 20+ years and one partner out earned the other by such a wide margin that the disparity in their lifestyles would be unconscionable (in the eyes of the presiding judge) without alimony. Alimony is now mostly considered a short term measure to help the lower earner transition to financial independence.

TL;DR This bill is addressing a situation that is increasingly rare. It’s patronage for wealthy male campaign donors at best and misogyny at worst. It’s a new iteration of Welfare Queens, except these women weren’t even supported by tax dollars.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Very few people are awarded permanent alimony now. Now it’s only awarded in cases where there was a long term marriage and there’s a large disparity in earning potential (not just prior earnings), typically when a couple has lived the lifestyle of one parent staying home while the other one earns a most/all of the income, for a substantial period of time.

In a case where a couple has been married for 7 years and they have two children (let’s say 5 and 2), and when the first kid was born, the man earned $250,000 and the woman earned $175,000, but she dropped out of the workforce to be a SAHM, and the man now earns $320,000, but now they’re divorcing, the woman will get some child support (assuming she’ll have custody of the kids at least half the time) and might get alimony for a brief period until she’s back in the workforce, but she’s finished being a SAHM and will be expected to earn a salary commensurate with her previous earning history. She would not be able to take on a part-time hobby job and receive alimony that allows her to maintain the same lifestyle she enjoyed while married even in the short term, let alone indefinitely.

Permanent alimony is becoming rarer and rarer. You’re mostly going to see it where people were married 20+ years and one partner out earned the other by such a wide margin that the disparity in their lifestyles would be unconscionable (in the eyes of the presiding judge) without alimony. Alimony is now mostly considered a short term measure to help the lower earner transition to financial independence.

TL;DR This bill is addressing a situation that is increasingly rare. It’s patronage for wealthy male campaign donors at best and misogyny at worst. It’s a new iteration of Welfare Queens, except these women weren’t even supported by tax dollars.

I looked into it, and this situation apparently pertains to only about 3000 people nationwide. But, the people it affects are pretty easy to sympathize with-- really old ladies who can't work, or are disabled. It sounds like they can still be awarded spousal support through a court order, even without the legal framework of "permanant alimony." So it seems like it is tackling an almost non existent issue with a cure that doesnt actually work, but something must have motivated them.