Reply to Ron DeSantis ends permanent alimony

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Ron DeSantis ends permanent alimony "

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]NP. I think the rapid fire posts lashing out at anyone who is opposed to permanent alimony  come across as deeply entitled and sexist.

These are the same people who think it is horrifying if a woman in her 70s and 80s has to work, but are gleeful about how making the elderly ex-husband continue to work into his 80s to support that permanent alimony is fine, great even. It is greedy and hypocritical. [/quote]

Yet the divorce decree states that reality and the judge signed off on it, and the woman gave up marital assets for the alimony. That’s not greedy. That’s buyers remorse on the husband’s side.[/quote]

Why should the elderly husband be the only one who suffers for buyer’s remorse? It is immoral for these ex-wives to force elderly men to keep working when they refuse to do the same.

If both parties are working, then I think the situation is different. But forcing an elderly man to keep working into his 80s so you don’t have to sully yourself with a job? That is flat-out immoral and horribly greedy. [/quote]

The women who received alimony had a cap on how much they could make each year. The paying husbands didn’t. So in addition to earning less and giving up assets, now the women must give up their alimony.

The divorce settlements were not immoral. They had to adhere to legal guidelines or else the judge wouldn’t have signed off on them. [/quote]

Let’s just be clear here: you are advocating for forcing elderly men to work until they die, so elderly women don’t have to.

There is no world in which this is not immoral. And just because the law permitted that sort of immorality at the time (which is why the men had to agree) does not remove the immoral aspect of it. [/quote]

No one is forcing elderly men to work. Social Security and pensions have rules about ex-spouse benefits based on when and for how long they were married. Other income and investments are covered by divorce agreements. If you agreed to it you should pay it, as you guys say about student loan debt. Alimony debt is an obligation. [/quote]

[b]The alimony payment was a pay as you go plan over time so the husbands could keep their businesses, or expensive homes, or some tangible property or asset.

They kept those assets and the wives said fine, keep them. Instead of paying me for my share now, I will accept x amount of alimony. Husband agreed. He kept the marital assets.[/b]

Now, he’s so old he can’t work and pay the amount he agreed to pay. Fair enough.

Back to court and renegotiate the settlement. Time to divide said asset/s.

And then the monthly alimony payment stops. [/quote]

The bolded is completely untrue. I don’t know why you are propagating so many lies. The assets are split evenly at time of divorce. The only reason alimony was given was that in the old days, older women with no work history couldn’t get any jobs, so the alimony was to compensate for that. Nowadays there really isn’t the same justification for it, because there isn’t the same barrier to work for ex-wives.

So it sounds like what you want in addition to half the marital estate (which the wives already get) is to force an elderly man to work until he dies so you don’t have to get a job.

Look, you can take that position if you want, but it’s not going to find you a lot of supporters, because it is immoral and greedy. [/quote]

Exactly! +1[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics