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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Anonymous wrote:If you received alimony in your divorce please share your circumstances. How long married, said or working mom, length of marriage, HHI, etc.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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?