Melody
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 10102
Loc: California
|
|
I find your reference to anyone who doesn't earn as much as her husband insulting. It's not like I'm flipping burgers, ya know. I have a professional degree with graduate work....yet I am significantly underpaid for the level of responsibility and influence my job entails.
|
changes
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/07/07
Posts: 1820
|
|
[quote]How dare you insult me or any other parent on this board. I used the word "crap" because I found that I didn't care for the full time SAHM lifestyle. It was nice, but not challenging or interesting enough. How dare you call my children "craps". [/quote]
You used the word in terms of being a Stay At Home MOTHER....see the MOTHER in there? If it's a crappy job/sitation then don't do it. If you don't like your own terms pointed out...don't use them.
--------------------
If I agreed with you then we'd both be wrong.
|
Melody
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 10102
Loc: California
|
|
Hardly worth the effort to discuss it with you.
The ACRONYM is widely understood as just that....an ACRONYM that applies to a parent (in my case female) who stayed at home. No reference was made to not enjoying motherhood...you ASSUMED that. Better now?
|
changes
Pooh-Bah
Reged: 04/07/07
Posts: 1820
|
|
Back peddle as much as you like....you're the one all worked up.
--------------------
If I agreed with you then we'd both be wrong.
|
TGSM
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 02/06/05
Posts: 5843
|
|
Okay, let me see if I can put together a coherent thought. LOL It's been a long day.
Though some might be surprised, I am not completely against alimony. I do believe there are circumstances where it is justified. However, I don't think lifetime support should ever be awarded. At most, 1/2 the length of the marriage should give a person enough time to make a new lives for themselves. The supported person should have to accept their share of responsibility for the decision to stay home. They do so by not believing they are entittled to their exspouses money for life.
It may even further surprise some people to know that when DH and I first got together, I had no problem with the spousal and child support he paid. I didn't know all the amounts till much later in our realtionship, but still...I thought it was commendable of my husband to provide for his XW and kids in such a manner. He is a good man.
When things took the turn and resentment started to creep in was after my son was born. SD had graduated in June of 97 and there was a significant drop in CS. We decided to save some money so that we could have our child. Drew was born in Dec. 98.
Money was tight, but we were doing good. BM flipped out after he was born and started causing all sorts of visitation issues. This is when we started hearing a lot of the PAS bullshit from her. SHe said to Dave, "You have another son you can spend time with now, stay away from MY son." She withheld visits, hid the kids, etc.
She said, "Well I guess you won't be paying for the kids college education now." WTF???...He had agreed to give her what was called family support (It's combined and she paid no taxes on it.) So we were supposed to take the tax deductions placing us in a position to paid more child support....because of this, she was supposed to continue putting money into their college funds accounts. Not only didn't she NOT put the money into the accounts, she actually cleaned them out to pay her attorney she also lied and filed married and single...took all 3 kids as deductions and stuck Dave with a $18,000 tax bill he couldn't pay
I digress...let me try to get back on track, I have a migraine.
So my problem with paying alimony didn't come until after my husband was laid off his tech job in the bay area at 45 years old.
At this point in time, Dave has no job, we had no assets and I was recovering from childbirth.
She gave us such incredible hell over us asking to lower the CS and Alimony. She refused to lower her non-modifable alimony ($300 a month) and as a result, her child support ended up very low ($245 a mont.) So even with us being forced to give her 45% of DH's net pay, we still mamanged to get by and thrive.
So it was during that battle the resentment had started to rise. When DH got another job working for the county, there was literally a $1.00 per hour difference between their jobs...that's why I ALWAYS tell people...DO NOT ACCEPT NONMODIFABLE ALIMONY...it's evil.
So slowly, the resentment creeped in as it became apparent her intent was to try and put our family on the street, including my new baby boy whom she hated. It was at that point in time that I knew I hated her. The words she has said about my child alone make me want to smack her six ways from sunday.
Again...I digress. The situation further detiorated when she strung her ex fiance along for five years and wouldn't marry the guy because she didn't want to lose her alimony. I mean she was working it. He would "stay" at her house, but still owned his own home. He put thousands of dollars into her home thinking it would one day be his too....nope she used him like a piece of toliet paper and then grabbed her next victim (the therapist) our of the box of lies.
Now she is planning on marrying this guy in Aug or Sept. (Remember alimony ends June 30, 2007.)
But we will have the last laugh. She will pay full child support for 12 months...I will recoop money from her that I have spent out of my own money to care for her son.
Then on June 10, 2008 I will close the door on an financial dealing we will have with that woman forever...if I never have to see her again....the better my life will be for it.
--------------------
Faith-a f*rm belief in something for which there is no proof...complete trust.~Merriam Webster
|
Melody
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/04
Posts: 10102
Loc: California
|
|
you're not worth it.
And it's pedal...I'm not selling anything.
Edited by Melody (05/06/07 03:00 AM)
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19801
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
So in essence...alimony was ok until it effect your life and then it wasn't ok.
You're against "lifetime" alimony, but what if you're 60, 65, 70 when the divorce happens...do you think that that person has sufficient time to make a "new life" for themselves? People who are currently of that age going through a divorce are of a different generation that you are I and thus their marriages and expectations are different than yours or mine. Why should those people be punished because of that?
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Miranda
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 20822
Loc: North of Mexico
|
|
Let's be realistic, lifetime alimony at age 70 could be 5 years or 10 years- a relatively short term in comparison to someone who is 45-50 years old. Alimony really should not extend past the length of marriage. A woman who was married for 20 years and divorced at age 45 should not be given 35 years of alimony because she never work full time or out of the home, etc. And really once social security kicks in and both parties are retired there is no reason why one should still pay the other. THat is def. not "equitable" by any means. People on fixed incomes being forced to pay someone they were married to 20 years prior? Yuck!
And really if alimony did not negatively effect someone's life it would not be such a contentious issue.
--------------------
13.1...because I am only half crazy!
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19801
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Let's be realistic.....
---> And therein lies the problem, people aren't being. The majority of ya'll who have partcipated in this discussion still do not understand that alimony is not a black and white issue. Sheesh...I even gave ya'll the three distinct types of alimony, but ya'll are still trying to lump it together and make it fit every situation and you can't. Nor can you treat alimony like you do child support.
You can't say that it's ok to pay alimony to someone who is 70 and then turn around and say that alimony should NOT be paid because of social security.
Nor can you just arbitrairly decide that because someone remained a SAHP after the kids were in school or only worked part-time, that they are LESS deserving of alimony.
While I agree...in principal...that alimony shouldn't exceed the length of marriage, I also understand that there could be circumstances that warrant it. Let's say that during our ten years of marriage, I fully supported and paid for my spouse's education...eight years of it. I don't think that that is a debt that could easily be paid in ten years, so why not give the other party 15 years to pay it off?
As for your final statement...a lot of things can "negatively" effect someone's life, but that is NOT what makes it "contentious"...what makes alimony so contintious is that it has been abused/misused.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Miranda
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/02/05
Posts: 20822
Loc: North of Mexico
|
|
"You can't say that it's ok to pay alimony to someone who is 70 and then turn around and say that alimony should NOT be paid because of social security."
***************
I never said it was okay to pay a 70 year old alimony. I was replying to your post about a 70 year old getting lifetime alimony in comparison to a 45 year old getting lifetime alimony.
--------------------
13.1...because I am only half crazy!
Edited by Miranda (05/06/07 12:56 PM)
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
