There is a crazed ex-wife who is rapid fire posting in this thread, I think.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The elderly men we are talking about aren't working. They are just living off their investments.

Once they retain an attorney and petition the court to stop their monthly alimony payments, they will have to cash out some of those investments. They won’t be just stopping alimony payments. And they will be paying their attorneys, nice n cheap that will be.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The elderly men we are talking about aren't working. They are just living off their investments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

and the ex-wives aren’t forcing anyone to do anything. It was an agreement with attorneys advising their divorcing clients. If the men don’t want to pay the agreed upon amount- redo the entire property settlement. That would be fair to both parties.

They are absolutely forcing their ex-husbands to work. What delusional world are you living in?

The ex-husband’s agreement is forcing him to work.

I encourage all the ex-husbands who are unhappy with their divorce settlements to retain an attorney and renegotiate their terms. They will be writing large checks to their ex-wives, but no monthly alimony payments after that.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

I don’t make the laws. I don’t negotiate divorce settlements.

Husbands received a larger share of the marital assets and the wives received alimony.

Each divorce settlement should be reworked so each party receives an equal share. Then the alimony issue would be null.

That would be fair to both parties. I guarantee many men won’t do that because they will be on the hook for way more money than their monthly alimony payments.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

and the ex-wives aren’t forcing anyone to do anything. It was an agreement with attorneys advising their divorcing clients. If the men don’t want to pay the agreed upon amount- redo the entire property settlement. That would be fair to both parties.

They are absolutely forcing their ex-husbands to work. What delusional world are you living in?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

And now those legal guidelines have changed so divorce negotiations will change too going forward.
The gravy train for lazy women has just stopped.

The women will receive larger property asset divisions when they negotiate their divorce settlements. Everything acquired during marriage belongs to both parties. Now, if the husband wants certain assets, the wife will not agree to give them to the husband outright and accept alimony over a period of years. They will have to be bought out of said assets at the time the divorce takes place.

Also, women can still get alimony if they work. The court will equalize the amount a woman receives according to their wages. A spouse making $150,000 a year vs a spouse making $45,000 a year- the spouse making less will receive alimony. Just because someone receives alimony, doesn’t mean that they don’t work. The court recognizes that one spouse may have worked a less demanding and less lucrative job to contribute to household upkeep and childcare duties.

It’s not simply one spouse didn’t work and demanded lifelong alimony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

And now those legal guidelines have changed so divorce negotiations will change too going forward.
The gravy train for lazy women has just stopped.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

and the ex-wives aren’t forcing anyone to do anything. It was an agreement with attorneys advising their divorcing clients. If the men don’t want to pay the agreed upon amount- redo the entire property settlement. That would be fair to both parties.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote: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.

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.