Anonymous wrote:

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.

Her standard of living won't be the same as it was before. From $600,000 HHI to $156,00 is a bit of a drop.

I'm in a similar situation, although still happily married. My DH and I agreed years ago that life was too difficult with 2 kids and both of us having full-time, stressful jobs with long hours. We could afford to have me SAH, and that is what I have done. I have no current skills anymore, despite a once impressive resume and education. I doubt anyone would hire me for a 'real' job at my age, so I'd make very little if I went back to work. This is why alimony exists. And my standard of living would most certainly not stay the same, even with the alimony.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love that you are assuming his job is “so stressful” if we’re speculating, this dude could love his job. Does that make a difference?

Please tell us about all of the $600K per year jobs that are not stressful. The point remains: the law should require anybody receiving alimony to work at least as many hours/week as the person paying alimony.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

I love that you are assuming his job is “so stressful” if we’re speculating, this dude could love his job. Does that make a difference?

Anonymous wrote:

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?

I receive alimony bc my exh has an affair, left and is now with his affair partner. I stay home (and will for another year) with our children. Since he wanted me to be able to live in the high cost of living area that we do, so he can see his children more easily, he ponied up more than child support. I will receive alimony until our youngest graduates. We made this agreement, not the courts. And exh can afford it.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And we all strive to gain your respect.

Exactly. What a narrow minded perspective.

I supported xh and started a joint business venture with him which was very profitable (300-500K/yr net profit). Then after months of threats he quit working all together when kids stopped wanting to see him. I'm seeking unequal division of marital property. Screw him. I could've spent those years building my own career. He made the business unsalable. Now he won't divorce me. Its hell on all fronts.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And we all strive to gain your respect.

Exactly. What a narrow minded perspective.

I supported xh and started a joint business venture with him which was very profitable (300-500K/yr net profit). Then after months of threats he quit working all together when kids stopped wanting to see him. I'm seeking unequal division of marital property. Screw him. I could've spent those years building my own career. He made the business unsalable. Now he won't divorce me. Its hell on all fronts.

The kids should not have the option of not seeing their dad. He got pissed when you turned the kids against him. Both of you need to focus on the kids and not use them as pawns.

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.

And women who had scaled back work or stayed home when their kids were small, thus sacrificing career advancement, including salary increases? Ever read “The Price of Motherhood”?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

And we all strive to gain your respect.

Exactly. What a narrow minded perspective.

I supported xh and started a joint business venture with him which was very profitable (300-500K/yr net profit). Then after months of threats he quit working all together when kids stopped wanting to see him. I'm seeking unequal division of marital property. Screw him. I could've spent those years building my own career. He made the business unsalable. Now he won't divorce me. Its hell on all fronts.

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Her standard of living won't be the same as it was before. From $600,000 HHI to $156,00 is a bit of a drop.

I'm in a similar situation, although still happily married. My DH and I agreed years ago that life was too difficult with 2 kids and both of us having full-time, stressful jobs with long hours. We could afford to have me SAH, and that is what I have done. I have no current skills anymore, despite a once impressive resume and education. I doubt anyone would hire me for a 'real' job at my age, so I'd make very little if I went back to work. This is why alimony exists. And my standard of living would most certainly not stay the same, even with the alimony.

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:

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.

And we all strive to gain your respect.

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.