Anonymous wrote:NP. I'm the alimony poster. We live in NY which is not a community property state. During the twenty years we've been married, I've stayed home and my husband worked. His work has produced a net worth of around 5 million excluding our house.
Theoretically, he could argue that I did not contribute much money to our net worth and so I am not entitled to any of it in a divorce. On the other hand, you could argue that my staying at home freed him up to make that kind of money, yada yada. But of course, as pointed out in the article, we don't live in a society that values that type of work and so it is unlikely a judge would agree.
And you all think that is fair?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.
SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.
You want your children to have to work longer to support you staying at home? The whole idea is quite ironic.
half is not enough to live on
You do realize that this puts the burden of working to support you from having to get a job on the backs of poorer working mothers who have no choice?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.
SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.
You want your children to have to work longer to support you staying at home? The whole idea is quite ironic.
half is not enough to live on
You do realize that this puts the burden of working to support you from having to get a job on the backs of poorer working mothers who have no choice?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.
SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.
You want your children to have to work longer to support you staying at home? The whole idea is quite ironic.
half is not enough to live on
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:At the very least, we should bring alimony back.
Alimony is a feminist issue imo. If we believe women are equals and empower them to make choices, then we need to make sure they don't suffer the consequences of them.
No, not until the aspects of alimony that wildly favor UMC and UC women while harming working class families are ended. Wealthy women who don't want jobs should not be driving policy.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.
SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.
You want your children to have to work longer to support you staying at home? The whole idea is quite ironic.
Anonymous wrote:At the very least, we should bring alimony back.
Alimony is a feminist issue imo. If we believe women are equals and empower them to make choices, then we need to make sure they don't suffer the consequences of them.
Anonymous wrote:The feminist movement has always been driven by MC and UMC women (mainly white women). You're just now figuring this out? Get the hell out of your bubble.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.
SAHMs can already get up to half of their spouse’s benefit without having worked the requisite 40 quarters.
You want your children to have to work longer to support you staying at home? The whole idea is quite ironic.
Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.
Anonymous wrote:Maybe SAHMs shouldn't be paid a salary but they could be given social security credits.