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?

I know, right? If you are a young woman divorcing today, you are highly unlikely to get permanent alimony. Those who built their lives when society was different should be offered different protections. I have no idea what problem the man is trying to solve here. I guess the cruelty is the point, again.

It’s really a shame so many of you seem unable to read. This will not affect existing alimony agreements.

“Senate bill sponsor Joe Gruters, R-Sarasota, tried to assure lawmakers that the 2023 version would not unconstitutionally affect existing alimony settlements.”

Anonymous wrote:Why do Republican women keep shooting themselves in the foot over and over again?

These men will just use you and dump you.

Interesting. I’m a Republican woman and I fully support this. Perhaps you shouldn’t ASSume what most Republican women feel based off of one melodramatic example.

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,an 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.

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.

Yes there would be.

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.

Anytime you’re messing with a lifelong legally agreed to income, you’re messing with a lot. Sundown it. Don’t leave people high and dry.

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.

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.

maybe trust the judges who made the decision,

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.

I am not a huge fan of alimony. I wish we had more equity in earnings and that women were more able to look after themselves financially after a divorce. But despite those concerns, I think giving a spouse (usually a woman) some time to become self supporting and then cutting the cord is probably appropriate.

However if you were married at a time when women just didn’t have a lot of training and worked hard in the home to build their husband’s career, it makes sense to provide the non working spouse for the rest of her life. She cannot get retrained. Societal expectations of her were different. Those are the folk for whom permanent alimony is ordered. It is very rare to see it ordered for a 30-something couple. Why would you screw over older women like that?

Put another way, it’s ok to expect your wife to work if you divorced her. It’s probably even ok to ask her mom to work if your dad divorced her although hopefully they’d be close to retirement. It’s crazy to ask your grandma to go to work if she is living off your grandfather’s pension.

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.

If this had been signed by Gavin Newsom, the same people would be defending it.

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/

Unless the spouse receiving alimony is handicapped and unable to work then they should not receive letmaoalimony.

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.

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)

Anonymous wrote:Why do people keep moving to that swamp hellhole?

Muh freedom

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?

Why do people keep moving to that swamp hellhole?