Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What state are you in?
Maryland
Why the divorce? Maryland looks at fault but is not an alimony friendly state. The length of the marriage, your need for support will be considered but unless you are in your 70s the Jidge is going to expect that you work. Your situation is a reminder to women whose DHs want them to SAH to get a pre or post nup covering alimony
I have never in my life met a man who wanted a SAHW. I've known many men who complain about their deadbeat SAHW who won't get a job.
Seriously? I'm a SAHM and I've known plenty of other SAHMs. I only know of a very small handful of SAHPs who were staying at home against the wishes of their working spouse. That is something you either agree upon or you both continue to work and outsource the domestic duties.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Yes she can try to get a job but age discrimination is rampant and women in their 50s are particularly hard hit. She is not likely to find anything well-paying with her experience unless she has useful current skills from her work with her husband.
OP what skills do you have from the business?
You are missing the point entirely. It doesn't matter how much she earns. It doesn't matter what skills she has, or not. What matters is she must work (the same # hours/week) as her alimony paying husband.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Alimony is for the pathetic . Support yourself. Gravy train is over. Don’t you have any pride?
....said the angry disgruntled exDH.
Actually I’m a happily married working woman who takes full responsibility for my own financial life. And manages to be an excellent mom at the same time. There are a million of us out there, and a million of us on these boards.
HOW have you managed to be so successful when your thinking is so black and white, so lacking in insight, emotional intelligence or compassion?
Anonymous wrote:Yes she can try to get a job but age discrimination is rampant and women in their 50s are particularly hard hit. She is not likely to find anything well-paying with her experience unless she has useful current skills from her work with her husband.
OP what skills do you have from the business?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Alimony is for the pathetic . Support yourself. Gravy train is over. Don’t you have any pride?
....said the angry disgruntled exDH.
Actually I’m a happily married working woman who takes full responsibility for my own financial life. And manages to be an excellent mom at the same time. There are a million of us out there, and a million of us on these boards.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.
When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.
The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.
The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.
Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.
Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).
Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?
maybe she should have thought of that before quitting the workforce.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What state are you in?
Maryland
Why the divorce? Maryland looks at fault but is not an alimony friendly state. The length of the marriage, your need for support will be considered but unless you are in your 70s the Jidge is going to expect that you work. Your situation is a reminder to women whose DHs want them to SAH to get a pre or post nup covering alimony
I have never in my life met a man who wanted a SAHW. I've known many men who complain about their deadbeat SAHW who won't get a job.
Seriously? I'm a SAHM and I've known plenty of other SAHMs. I only know of a very small handful of SAHPs who were staying at home against the wishes of their working spouse. That is something you either agree upon or you both continue to work and outsource the domestic duties.
Take this thread to heart, PP. tale as old as time...
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.
When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.
The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.
The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.
Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.
Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).
Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?
maybe she should have thought of that before quitting the workforce.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What state are you in?
Maryland
Why the divorce? Maryland looks at fault but is not an alimony friendly state. The length of the marriage, your need for support will be considered but unless you are in your 70s the Jidge is going to expect that you work. Your situation is a reminder to women whose DHs want them to SAH to get a pre or post nup covering alimony
I have never in my life met a man who wanted a SAHW. I've known many men who complain about their deadbeat SAHW who won't get a job.
Seriously? I'm a SAHM and I've known plenty of other SAHMs. I only know of a very small handful of SAHPs who were staying at home against the wishes of their working spouse. That is something you either agree upon or you both continue to work and outsource the domestic duties.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:My Sister was married for close to twenty years.
When she divorced, she got 1/2 of what her husband earns plus 1/2 his retirement.
The alimony is forever unless she re-marries.
She lives in CA which is hugely a property state.
The state should compel her to work the same number of hours per week as her ex husband. Even if that’s a minimum wage Walmart job, it is unconscionable to think that a State can force a man to work while a woman does no work. Regardless of how great she might have once been as a SAHM, once those child duties are complete (ie kids are in school full time) she has NOT done anything to earn a lifetime of free income with zero work hours.
Uhhh...and most divorced SAH spouses DO go back to work. They need health insurance and they have bills to pay like everyone else does. They also get alimony to help them make ends meet plus half of the marital assets. They don't just get kicked to the curb while the bread winning spouse keeps it all. That's not the way it works.
Uhhh... there's no way then for PP's claim that she gets 1/2 of what her husband earns could be true. I am all for rehabilitative alimony while a divorced spouse gets back on her (or his) feet to re-enter the workforce and support her (or him)self. But on no planet should a spouse EVER (for ANY reason) collect even 1 cent of alimony who does not her (or him)self work a THE SAME # OF HOURS/WEEK in a paying job (or is actively being trained/educated to do so).
Depending on the ages of the people and assets involved, it may not make sense to put money into job training when the couple is already approaching retirement age. You have to look at the big picture. It's not a one size fits all. Why should the husband be able to retire in 5 years while the wife is required to work retail until she's 80?
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What state are you in?
Maryland
Why the divorce? Maryland looks at fault but is not an alimony friendly state. The length of the marriage, your need for support will be considered but unless you are in your 70s the Jidge is going to expect that you work. Your situation is a reminder to women whose DHs want them to SAH to get a pre or post nup covering alimony
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What state are you in?
Maryland
Why the divorce? Maryland looks at fault but is not an alimony friendly state. The length of the marriage, your need for support will be considered but unless you are in your 70s the Jidge is going to expect that you work. Your situation is a reminder to women whose DHs want them to SAH to get a pre or post nup covering alimony
I have never in my life met a man who wanted a SAHW. I've known many men who complain about their deadbeat SAHW who won't get a job.
Really? I am a hard working, successful woman and have met many men who are looking to "put their wives out of work."
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What state are you in?
Maryland
Why the divorce? Maryland looks at fault but is not an alimony friendly state. The length of the marriage, your need for support will be considered but unless you are in your 70s the Jidge is going to expect that you work. Your situation is a reminder to women whose DHs want them to SAH to get a pre or post nup covering alimony
I have never in my life met a man who wanted a SAHW. I've known many men who complain about their deadbeat SAHW who won't get a job.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What state are you in?
Maryland
Why the divorce? Maryland looks at fault but is not an alimony friendly state. The length of the marriage, your need for support will be considered but unless you are in your 70s the Jidge is going to expect that you work. Your situation is a reminder to women whose DHs want them to SAH to get a pre or post nup covering alimony
I have never in my life met a man who wanted a SAHW. I've known many men who complain about their deadbeat SAHW who won't get a job.
Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:Anonymous wrote:What state are you in?
Maryland
Why the divorce? Maryland looks at fault but is not an alimony friendly state. The length of the marriage, your need for support will be considered but unless you are in your 70s the Jidge is going to expect that you work. Your situation is a reminder to women whose DHs want them to SAH to get a pre or post nup covering alimony