Ron DeSantis ends permanent alimony

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are in your bubble and are thinking of Nannies and high earners and bs like that but that is not who we are talking about here.

Imagine an uneducated nail technician cheating on her hardworking civil servant husband for years but stretches out the marriage to make it to the ten year mark so she can get half of his pension (woohoo I won the lottery!) for eternity. She also gets “full custody” of the kids (=child support $) but decides to take that money and run off to West Virginia with her new boyfriend, lots of vacations to Cancun and a giant new pickup truck while the courts require her to keep paying even as he raises the kids himself, pays for braces etc . Alternative scenario a lady used to being supported her whole married life is now divorced at 55 but does not feel like getting an actual job so prefers remaining “dependant” in spite the fact that it means her husband can never actually retire, as he will be Paying for the rest of time.


Yes I am a feminist but a lot of times really get the shitty end of the stick and usually it is men with fewer of course.

How is a woman of 55 that spent almost all her career building years being a SAHM supposed to support herself on minimum wage since she has no skills to get any other kind of job? Coincidently society doesn’t believe we should raise minimum wage since only teenagers should be working those kinds of jobs so now what? She’s 10ish years from retirement, retirement benefits won’t pay crap no health care and supposed to afford living in any capacity on 7.25/hr.

LOL. She has been retired for decades on the back of someone else, now that someone else needs to extend their time to retirement because getting a low wage job is beneath her? Half of the marital assets, 5-10 years of alimony and then fly baby fly!

So no adult should ever be a SAHP then, correct? Those are your words, that is a worthless job and every adult should
Work.

Yes. Let all children be raised by child care workers with IQs of 78. Honestly many of you are jealous of SAHMs. DeSantis probably had one rich donor in mind that this law will affect. I’ve seen a lot of divorces since the 80s and don’t know any with permanent alimony. I did read over the weekend that DeSantis earns $170k. His net worth was in the $300ks when last reported. He recently signed a book deal that will triple his net worth. SAHM Casey better watch her back.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are in your bubble and are thinking of Nannies and high earners and bs like that but that is not who we are talking about here.

Imagine an uneducated nail technician cheating on her hardworking civil servant husband for years but stretches out the marriage to make it to the ten year mark so she can get half of his pension (woohoo I won the lottery!) for eternity. She also gets “full custody” of the kids (=child support $) but decides to take that money and run off to West Virginia with her new boyfriend, lots of vacations to Cancun and a giant new pickup truck while the courts require her to keep paying even as he raises the kids himself, pays for braces etc . Alternative scenario a lady used to being supported her whole married life is now divorced at 55 but does not feel like getting an actual job so prefers remaining “dependant” in spite the fact that it means her husband can never actually retire, as he will be Paying for the rest of time.


Yes I am a feminist but a lot of times really get the shitty end of the stick and usually it is men with fewer of course.

How is a woman of 55 that spent almost all her career building years being a SAHM supposed to support herself on minimum wage since she has no skills to get any other kind of job? Coincidently society doesn’t believe we should raise minimum wage since only teenagers should be working those kinds of jobs so now what? She’s 10ish years from retirement, retirement benefits won’t pay crap no health care and supposed to afford living in any capacity on 7.25/hr.

LOL. She has been retired for decades on the back of someone else, now that someone else needs to extend their time to retirement because getting a low wage job is beneath her? Half of the marital assets, 5-10 years of alimony and then fly baby fly!

So no adult should ever be a SAHP then, correct? Those are your words, that is a worthless job and every adult should
Work.

Do whatever you want, but own your choices. If you decide to become dependent like a child, surrendering all your financial independence to your spouse, its a gamble. And sometimes those choices have negative consequences.
No one should be held hostage unable to retire at a sensible age because an ex-spouse thinks they are entitled to a lifetime of their earnings.

It's only 3,000 women in the state of Florida on permanent alimony. Those women most likely were not born and raised in Florida, but in New York or some other Northern state. I couldn't care less if a woman receives permanent alimony, as long as she isn't collecting money from tax payers. Why do you care about 3,000 men who are paying their ex-wives alimony?

Anyway, the most likely scenario as to why most of these men continue working into retirement, is that they are paying for their ADULT children. That's not going to end just because the permanent alimony ends.

These men will never retire because of the power and validation they receive in the workplace. And most of them are still financially supporting their adult children, like children over the age of 18.

The lawsuit came about because some of these men said they were being required to work into their 70's and beyond to continue paying forever alimony. Why should anyone be forced into this kind of servitude for another capable human they are not married to?
And forced is the the word. I couldn't care less what they willing offer their adult children as long as they aren't made to be anyone's indentured servant.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are in your bubble and are thinking of Nannies and high earners and bs like that but that is not who we are talking about here.

Imagine an uneducated nail technician cheating on her hardworking civil servant husband for years but stretches out the marriage to make it to the ten year mark so she can get half of his pension (woohoo I won the lottery!) for eternity. She also gets “full custody” of the kids (=child support $) but decides to take that money and run off to West Virginia with her new boyfriend, lots of vacations to Cancun and a giant new pickup truck while the courts require her to keep paying even as he raises the kids himself, pays for braces etc . Alternative scenario a lady used to being supported her whole married life is now divorced at 55 but does not feel like getting an actual job so prefers remaining “dependant” in spite the fact that it means her husband can never actually retire, as he will be Paying for the rest of time.


Yes I am a feminist but a lot of times really get the shitty end of the stick and usually it is men with fewer of course.

How is a woman of 55 that spent almost all her career building years being a SAHM supposed to support herself on minimum wage since she has no skills to get any other kind of job? Coincidently society doesn’t believe we should raise minimum wage since only teenagers should be working those kinds of jobs so now what? She’s 10ish years from retirement, retirement benefits won’t pay crap no health care and supposed to afford living in any capacity on 7.25/hr.

LOL. She has been retired for decades on the back of someone else, now that someone else needs to extend their time to retirement because getting a low wage job is beneath her? Half of the marital assets, 5-10 years of alimony and then fly baby fly!

So no adult should ever be a SAHP then, correct? Those are your words, that is a worthless job and every adult should
Work.

Yes. Let all children be raised by child care workers with IQs of 78. Honestly many of you are jealous of SAHMs. DeSantis probably had one rich donor in mind that this law will affect. I’ve seen a lot of divorces since the 80s and don’t know any with permanent alimony. I did read over the weekend that DeSantis earns $170k. His net worth was in the $300ks when last reported. He recently signed a book deal that will triple his net worth. SAHM Casey better watch her back.

So women that raise children have IQ's of 78. Irony is lost on the stupid.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Good, there no reason for it and it’s a step in the right direction. Next default 50/50 should be the standard and people negotiate from there and even the playing field. For too long men have taken all the risk and none of the rewards of marriage and I have seen men lose everything. It’s time to level the playing field and be on equal footing when it comes to divorce and family courts.

Statistics don't align with your views. Men's standard of living increases after divorce, while for women it's the opposite. You might see a man move into an apartment temporarily. Most women can't afford the family home.

I'm a woman who chose not have children at all. I think you will see more and more women who just won't marry and have any children, when the odds are not in their favor. Women aren't going to willingly marry someone and have his children and take care of his home without some reassurance they will be taken care of if he decides to high tail it out of there.

+1 MRA pukes are just something else, always whining.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are in your bubble and are thinking of Nannies and high earners and bs like that but that is not who we are talking about here.

Imagine an uneducated nail technician cheating on her hardworking civil servant husband for years but stretches out the marriage to make it to the ten year mark so she can get half of his pension (woohoo I won the lottery!) for eternity. She also gets “full custody” of the kids (=child support $) but decides to take that money and run off to West Virginia with her new boyfriend, lots of vacations to Cancun and a giant new pickup truck while the courts require her to keep paying even as he raises the kids himself, pays for braces etc . Alternative scenario a lady used to being supported her whole married life is now divorced at 55 but does not feel like getting an actual job so prefers remaining “dependant” in spite the fact that it means her husband can never actually retire, as he will be Paying for the rest of time.


Yes I am a feminist but a lot of times really get the shitty end of the stick and usually it is men with fewer of course.

How is a woman of 55 that spent almost all her career building years being a SAHM supposed to support herself on minimum wage since she has no skills to get any other kind of job? Coincidently society doesn’t believe we should raise minimum wage since only teenagers should be working those kinds of jobs so now what? She’s 10ish years from retirement, retirement benefits won’t pay crap no health care and supposed to afford living in any capacity on 7.25/hr.

LOL. She has been retired for decades on the back of someone else, now that someone else needs to extend their time to retirement because getting a low wage job is beneath her? Half of the marital assets, 5-10 years of alimony and then fly baby fly!

So no adult should ever be a SAHP then, correct? Those are your words, that is a worthless job and every adult should
Work.

Yes. Let all children be raised by child care workers with IQs of 78. Honestly many of you are jealous of SAHMs. DeSantis probably had one rich donor in mind that this law will affect. I’ve seen a lot of divorces since the 80s and don’t know any with permanent alimony. I did read over the weekend that DeSantis earns $170k. His net worth was in the $300ks when last reported. He recently signed a book deal that will triple his net worth. SAHM Casey better watch her back.

So women that raise children have IQ's of 78. Irony is lost on the stupid.

I don’t think you read the PP correctly.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Long term alimony is on the way out for the vast majority of women divorcing now and in the near future, given that women now make up a large percentage of the workforce and are not dramatically less likely to have earning potential than men; however, this was not the case for today’s elderly women. It’s unfair for this change to affect divorce settlements that are already in effect. It should only affect ones that go into effect starting now, so people can negotiate and set their budgets accordingly.

I don’t understand the State’s interest in ending permanent alimony. Won’t this result in some more people on the public dole?

When s man and a woman decide together that one of them will stay home to raise their children, thereby forgoing earnings and work experience, then yes, he should be just as bound to that financial agreement as she was. Men don’t need more incentive to walk away from family commitments.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long term alimony is on the way out for the vast majority of women divorcing now and in the near future, given that women now make up a large percentage of the workforce and are not dramatically less likely to have earning potential than men; however, this was not the case for today’s elderly women. It’s unfair for this change to affect divorce settlements that are already in effect. It should only affect ones that go into effect starting now, so people can negotiate and set their budgets accordingly.

I don’t understand the State’s interest in ending permanent alimony. Won’t this result in some more people on the public dole?

When s man and a woman decide together that one of them will stay home to raise their children, thereby forgoing earnings and work experience, then yes, he should be just as bound to that financial agreement as she was. Men don’t need more incentive to walk away from family commitments.

Then she should be bound by it as well and have to cook and clean his house

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are in your bubble and are thinking of Nannies and high earners and bs like that but that is not who we are talking about here.

Imagine an uneducated nail technician cheating on her hardworking civil servant husband for years but stretches out the marriage to make it to the ten year mark so she can get half of his pension (woohoo I won the lottery!) for eternity. She also gets “full custody” of the kids (=child support $) but decides to take that money and run off to West Virginia with her new boyfriend, lots of vacations to Cancun and a giant new pickup truck while the courts require her to keep paying even as he raises the kids himself, pays for braces etc . Alternative scenario a lady used to being supported her whole married life is now divorced at 55 but does not feel like getting an actual job so prefers remaining “dependant” in spite the fact that it means her husband can never actually retire, as he will be Paying for the rest of time.


Yes I am a feminist but a lot of times really get the shitty end of the stick and usually it is men with fewer of course.

How is a woman of 55 that spent almost all her career building years being a SAHM supposed to support herself on minimum wage since she has no skills to get any other kind of job? Coincidently society doesn’t believe we should raise minimum wage since only teenagers should be working those kinds of jobs so now what? She’s 10ish years from retirement, retirement benefits won’t pay crap no health care and supposed to afford living in any capacity on 7.25/hr.

LOL. She has been retired for decades on the back of someone else, now that someone else needs to extend their time to retirement because getting a low wage job is beneath her? Half of the marital assets, 5-10 years of alimony and then fly baby fly!

You have a screwed up view of families and reality. Is it really your position that no woman should be able to safely snd with stability care for her own children? What a messed up world you hope for.

[Anonymous]

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.

+100

Absolutely not. If you are a woman who gave up her entire life at the behest of her husband to support him in his career and raise the children, you should receive alimony.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

A current generation too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Long term alimony is on the way out for the vast majority of women divorcing now and in the near future, given that women now make up a large percentage of the workforce and are not dramatically less likely to have earning potential than men; however, this was not the case for today’s elderly women. It’s unfair for this change to affect divorce settlements that are already in effect. It should only affect ones that go into effect starting now, so people can negotiate and set their budgets accordingly.

I don’t understand the State’s interest in ending permanent alimony. Won’t this result in some more people on the public dole?

When s man and a woman decide together that one of them will stay home to raise their children, thereby forgoing earnings and work experience, then yes, he should be just as bound to that financial agreement as she was. Men don’t need more incentive to walk away from family commitments.

Then she should be bound by it as well and have to cook and clean his house

He dumped her and has his new young thing doing that, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

Ok. So why should a woman essentially be able to retire in her 50's but the exDH is required to continue working into his 70's just to pay her alimony? Divorce has consequences and if you chose to be a dependent and retire in your 40's you are taking a gamble. No one deserves a life of leisure by forcing servitude of another human.

No one hires people in their 40s and 50s with No or decades old work experience. They don’t even want to hire people that age who don’t have work gaps. Men can retire and share their retirement income just as they vowed to when they married and started a family.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are in your bubble and are thinking of Nannies and high earners and bs like that but that is not who we are talking about here.

Imagine an uneducated nail technician cheating on her hardworking civil servant husband for years but stretches out the marriage to make it to the ten year mark so she can get half of his pension (woohoo I won the lottery!) for eternity. She also gets “full custody” of the kids (=child support $) but decides to take that money and run off to West Virginia with her new boyfriend, lots of vacations to Cancun and a giant new pickup truck while the courts require her to keep paying even as he raises the kids himself, pays for braces etc . Alternative scenario a lady used to being supported her whole married life is now divorced at 55 but does not feel like getting an actual job so prefers remaining “dependant” in spite the fact that it means her husband can never actually retire, as he will be Paying for the rest of time.


Yes I am a feminist but a lot of times really get the shitty end of the stick and usually it is men with fewer of course.

How is a woman of 55 that spent almost all her career building years being a SAHM supposed to support herself on minimum wage since she has no skills to get any other kind of job? Coincidently society doesn’t believe we should raise minimum wage since only teenagers should be working those kinds of jobs so now what? She’s 10ish years from retirement, retirement benefits won’t pay crap no health care and supposed to afford living in any capacity on 7.25/hr.

LOL. She has been retired for decades on the back of someone else, now that someone else needs to extend their time to retirement because getting a low wage job is beneath her? Half of the marital assets, 5-10 years of alimony and then fly baby fly!

So no adult should ever be a SAHP then, correct? Those are your words, that is a worthless job and every adult should
Work.

Do whatever you want, but own your choices. If you decide to become dependent like a child, surrendering all your financial independence to your spouse, its a gamble. And sometimes those choices have negative consequences.
No one should be held hostage unable to retire at a sensible age because an ex-spouse thinks they are entitled to a lifetime of their earnings.

I work full time. I would be disappointed if my daughter became a SAHP. I really hope she maintains the ability to take care of herself and (potential) children should something happen with her (hypothetical) husband.

No young woman coming of age today should expect permanent alimony. It is rarely awarded and mothers should be teaching their daughters accordingly. That all being said, the disdain for the work of raising children and building a home on this thread is disgusting.

At the time that some of these agreements were made, it was absolutely the expectation that your husband would take care of you, even in the case of divorce. Women had less economic power and opportunities than they have today. How can the state of Florida insert itself into this agreement made in many cases decades before and insert today’s sentiments onto that agreement?

The women this is affecting absolutely “owned their choices”. Like good girls, they married some guy with decent earning potential. They kept the home fires burning. Then came the divorce and a judge was convinced the economic state of the wife was such that she needed permanent alimony. Then along comes the State of Florida, many years later, saying “too bad, so sad.”’ What about having those men who benefited from their ex-wife’s labor, and agreed to pay her, keep up their end of the bargain? Like maybe he should “own his choice”.

[Anonymous]

Agree. This is yet another example of men getting off the hook and women being left holding the bag.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So many of you are in your bubble and are thinking of Nannies and high earners and bs like that but that is not who we are talking about here.

Imagine an uneducated nail technician cheating on her hardworking civil servant husband for years but stretches out the marriage to make it to the ten year mark so she can get half of his pension (woohoo I won the lottery!) for eternity. She also gets “full custody” of the kids (=child support $) but decides to take that money and run off to West Virginia with her new boyfriend, lots of vacations to Cancun and a giant new pickup truck while the courts require her to keep paying even as he raises the kids himself, pays for braces etc . Alternative scenario a lady used to being supported her whole married life is now divorced at 55 but does not feel like getting an actual job so prefers remaining “dependant” in spite the fact that it means her husband can never actually retire, as he will be Paying for the rest of time.


Yes I am a feminist but a lot of times really get the shitty end of the stick and usually it is men with fewer of course.

How is a woman of 55 that spent almost all her career building years being a SAHM supposed to support herself on minimum wage since she has no skills to get any other kind of job? Coincidently society doesn’t believe we should raise minimum wage since only teenagers should be working those kinds of jobs so now what? She’s 10ish years from retirement, retirement benefits won’t pay crap no health care and supposed to afford living in any capacity on 7.25/hr.

LOL. She has been retired for decades on the back of someone else, now that someone else needs to extend their time to retirement because getting a low wage job is beneath her? Half of the marital assets, 5-10 years of alimony and then fly baby fly!

So no adult should ever be a SAHP then, correct? Those are your words, that is a worthless job and every adult should
Work.

Yes. Let all children be raised by child care workers with IQs of 78. Honestly many of you are jealous of SAHMs. DeSantis probably had one rich donor in mind that this law will affect. I’ve seen a lot of divorces since the 80s and don’t know any with permanent alimony. I did read over the weekend that DeSantis earns $170k. His net worth was in the $300ks when last reported. He recently signed a book deal that will triple his net worth. SAHM Casey better watch her back.

So women that raise children have IQ's of 78. Irony is lost on the stupid.

I don’t think you read the PP correctly.

I read her correctly. She decided to dunk on the hard working women that take care of the children of working families.
Essentially said any idiot can raise kids. Ahem.