hanzblinx
enthusiast
Reged: 08/13/10
Posts: 380
|
|
[quote]The last time I looked, this was the Spousal Support forum. Why are you in here blathering about guys getting their girlfriends pregnant and not paying child support?[/quote]
unfortunately such common sense is lost on her
|
MinnesotaMom
member
Reged: 01/05/11
Posts: 170
|
|
"Women are the higher earner in 35% of marriages now. It is inevitable that more and more of them will end up paying alimony, and as that happens there will be a groundswell of support for alimony reform."
That's the key right there. Women voters have tremendous power when it comes to child support, custody and alimony law. Until this point, there was no incentive to attempt any change.
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
According to the IRS 96% of alimony is collected by women.
---> So?
No-fault divorce and alimony should never co-exist. It only gives women incentive to sleep around, knowing they will be rewarded by the courts for it.
---> And 'equitable distribution' gives men incentive to sleep around, knowing they will be rewarded by the courts for it.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
Women are the higher earner in 35% of marriages now. It is inevitable that more and more of them will end up paying alimony, and as that happens there will be a groundswell of support for alimony reform.
---> Doubtful...simply because only maybe 10% of the men who are eligible ask for it. It's like the deal with child support guidelines; higher earner custodial parents have shown that serious reform is needed, but it's not going to happen, simply because they are the minority. As an example...when my ex received a substantial raise in pay...triple what I was earning...I was under the impression that my CS obligation would decrease. Instead...it doubled because our combined income bumped into a much higher bracket.
Alimony ultimately hurts everyone, an that includes the people receiving it. It is a throwback to an era when women were the property of men, and it deserves to die. Transitional assistance to allow a non-working partner to gain job skills is a great idea. Beyond that, it is just welfare, and almost every state has provisions limiting welfare these days.
---> No offense Coco, but it doesn't sound like you know a lot about the history of alimony and divorce.
---> Alimony came about for three basic reasons...1) until the early 20th century, churches presided over marriage (and divorce), 2) coverture, which was established during the time of Henry VII and not overturned until the mid-19th century, and 3) until 1970, divorce had to be for cause.
---> Because of coverture, a man retained said property rights even when he was at fault and so he was required to support his STBX. The exception was if the wife was found to be at fault and in that case, she got squat.
---> The problem with your 'transitional assistance' is that if fine for someone who has only been out of the workforce for a short time AND would be able to enjoy a similar standard of living...but what about a 60-year old woman, married 42 years, never worked outside the home and who had a comfortable life?
---> It's not alimony that needs to be reformed but divorce itself. One thing would be to bring back 'fault' divorce and make it a requirement that a 'no-fault' divorce can ONLY be obtained under a Summary Judgement (meaning that both parties agree). Also, 'equitable distribution' would ONLY apply to Summary Judgments, which would be 'fair' since no one is at 'fault'.
---> If you are found to be at 'fault'...then you need to be held accountable for your choices. In other words, you shouldn't be allowed to profit by your bad behavior/choices.
---> But one of the reasons for 'no-fault' was the fact that you couldn't obtain a divorce if your spouse didn't want to get a divorce; AND someone was at 'fault'. So what a lot of folks...men actually...were doing, was to hire a professional 'co-respondent' so the wife could sue for adultery (back then, you could sue the 'other woman/man'. So there needs to be a sort of 'self-fault' divorce; you don't lose your shirt, but your spouse is innocent of your choices.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
finz
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/17/08
Posts: 6462
|
|
Adding my 2 cents because these changes will apply to me.....
I don't think spousal support automatically ending when the payor is of legal retirement age is fair. I think a decrease in ss to reflect the decrease in income, that happens in most cases upon retirement, is reasonable. My husband can retire now and collect a pension(which will be more than twice my SSDI). His income will increase when he reaches 67 and can add social security retirement to his income.
I don't understand one of the points in that article that the standard in some cases was to have spousal support keep an ex at the same standard of living. The same standard of living would involve the ex getting almost all of the payor's income. When has that ever happened.....unless the payor's income was markedly decreased after the ss rate was set ?
Have to point out the obvious too.....the $150,000 he spent in legal fees fighting the ss would have paid for 15 years worth !
|
almostfree
newbie
Reged: 05/12/06
Posts: 38
|
|
Let's look at it from this stand point. Say the "pension" was a 401k in which she recieved half of at the time of the divorce. Now the payor retires. Now a portion of that 401k is being paid out in spousal support. Isn't the one getting the support getting more than they should since they already got their portion of the 401k?
|
Gecko
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/01/04
Posts: 19803
Loc: Third rock from the sun
|
|
I don't think spousal support automatically ending when the payor is of legal retirement age is fair.
---> Neither is life-time alimony for a 23 year marriage. There are of course, exceptions to every rule; it is doubtful that the rule would be applied to a 40 or 50 year marriage.
My husband can retire now and collect a pension (which will be more than twice my SSDI). His income will increase when he reaches 67 and can add social security retirement to his income.
---> And what about your pension? I am going to assume that you received half of his pension in the QDRO. How many years were you married? Did you work outside the home? Were you 'disabled' before you married, during the marriage and if so, at what point and was he responsible or after the marriage?
I don't understand one of the points in that article that the standard in some cases was to have spousal support keep an ex at the same standard of living. The same standard of living would involve the ex getting almost all of the payor's income.
---> Yep. It's the same way with child support.
Have to point out the obvious too.....the $150,000 he spent in legal fees fighting the ss would have paid for 15 years worth !
---> Yeah, but you're only looking at the short-term...he was looking at the long-term...of paying $865/month for the next FORTY+ years. $865 x 12 x 40 = $415,200. So he spends $150,000 and SAVES $265,200.
---> Also...there is the 'principal' of the matter and it's value cannot be measured in dollars.
--------------------
If you air your dirty linen in public, expect people to comment on the skid marks!
|
finz
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/17/08
Posts: 6462
|
|
[quote]Let's look at it from this stand point. Say the "pension" was a 401k in which she recieved half of at the time of the divorce. Now the payor retires. Now a portion of that 401k is being paid out in spousal support. Isn't the one getting the support getting more than they should since they already got their portion of the 401k? [/quote]
**********************************************
Or.....say that the pension is, oh, I don't know..... a traditional PENSION.
It is possible that if a poster meant to say a 401K, they WOULD have SAID a 401K instead of choosing to use the work pension.
|
finz
Carpal \'Tunnel
Reged: 06/17/08
Posts: 6462
|
|
And what about your pension? I am going to assume that you received half of his pension in the QDRO. How many years were you married? Did you work outside the home? Were you 'disabled' before you married, during the marriage and if so, at what point and was he responsible or after the marriage?
*************************
My retirement assets from work are meager (approx 20K). The plan is that that money will be spent as a downpayment on a condo that will be my new residence, so that will be split in our division of assets.
I have not received half of his pension in a QDRO because I am not divorced. We won't start the process until we are closer to ys's high school graduation in 2 years.
If I were to get half of his work retirement account, I would not then be trying to get some of the half he got to keep going forward. He has said that his traditional pension cannot be 'cashed out' to be split. I would not be surprised to hear that he doesn't fully understand the process. It is not a subject that he is willing to discuss in any more detail and his employer will only give specifics to their employee. Until there are lawyers/court orders involved, I only have guesswork.
I worked throughout the marriage, until I was disabled by a WC accident almost 8 years ago, 10 years into the marriage.
|
almostfree
newbie
Reged: 05/12/06
Posts: 38
|
|
Pension, 401k, it doesn't matter. Each can be split or a cash value determined.
Are you always so crabby?
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
[Re: 
Edit
Reply
Quote
