Alimony-- why pay

[BobCox2]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

I think he just made a typo, if you replace the period at the end of the first sentence with a comma and add the words "as well" after history it makes sense.

Facts which are simply facts without evidence are highly suspect, facts based on history as well are doubly so.

FIFY
A history of belief without any evidence is a clear signal.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

cite please

I'll take a source on that. Hold the onion(s)

Here - have a heap

In summary for those too lazy to read though a bunch of sources:

Married men earn more than their single counterparts even when controlled for age, occupation and experience.

The difference is suspected to be down to several factors, in no particular order:

The support and encouragement they get from their wives makes them more likely to push for pay rises and promotions.
The support they get at home means they are better able to do their jobs - no need to take time out of work for errands that need to be done in person.
Women tend to prefer go-getters, hence tend to marry men who are more motivated
Employers pay married men more because "they have a family to support".

Conversely - married women tend to earn less than their single counterparts.

No man accepted this kind of terms and conditions. That's why there are divorce lawyers.

Any man who claims they were not aware of the risk of paying alimony when they agreed to get married (rarely is anyone holding a gun to their head) is either a liar or has **** for brains and probably isn't earning enough to be forced to pay alimony anyway.

During marriage, in return for his paycheck the woman cooks, cleans, and provide sex. Then after divorce, a man should be able to expect a meal and sex as part of the divorce. If that's an improbability, then he should he able to deduct the money from the settlement to get a maid and some prostitutes.

Any evidence that this is actually why men get married? Given that they can have sex and a live in girlfriend without getting hitched...

Any evidence that married women also don't want to have sex with their husbands? Aside those heading for divorce...

 

[Johnny]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=married+men+earn+more&btnG=Search
The support and encouragement they get from their wives makes them more likely to push for pay rises and promotions.
The support they get at home means they are better able to do their jobs - no need to take time out of work for errands that need to be done in person.
Women tend to prefer go-getters, hence tend to marry men who are more motivated
Employers pay married men more because "they have a family to support".

Cool. If she keeps offering all that after the divorce then I'd gladly throw her a few bucks every month in alimony.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

Cool. If she keeps offering all that after the divorce then I'd gladly throw her a few bucks every month in alimony.

Well - she's spent the last 20 years pushing you up the ladder, without that you'll be earning a fair bit less. You've already gotten the majority of the career benefit you can expect. In addition as she has sacrificed her own career to help you in yours she been financially hindered by you, a part of the reason for alimony is to recognize that and address that you are in a very good financial position having had all that help over the years (particularly if you have kids) but that she is in a ****ty position.

But hey - if you don't want to pay alimony then don't get married. If you do then it's a risk you know you're taking. Or marry a woman who earns more than you, stay home supporting her and raising the kids then 20 years later cash in, or marry a woman who also works and hire childcare.

Obviously there are exceptions, but the majority of cases where a guy has to really fork out alimony are those where he and his wife have come to a decision to make her a dependent of his. Often that decision is more the man's than the woman's and if he does not want the responsibilities it leads to he should push for alternative arrangements.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

Well - she's spent the last 20 years pushing you up the ladder, without that you'll be earning a fair bit less.

Yeah good luck proving that mountain of speculation. So does that mean that if I marry a woman if my career goes down hill from there then she owes me money for not providing me with the right support? If I do well at work it seems to entitle her to rewards then shouldn't she be liable if things go bad?


But I don't see what all this has to do with the original article.

I'm going to quote it again.

Mortgage and maintenance fees and rent for the Park Avenue penthouse, the Hamptons retreat and properties in Sweden account for $27,300 a week, according to a financial affidavit she filed with the court. And then there's travel ($8,000), clothing ($4,500), a personal assistant ($2,209), horse care ($1,570), domestic help ($1,480), entertainment and restaurants ($1,500), health and skin care ($1,000), dry cleaning ($650), flowers ($600) and a trainer ($250).

What do you think the chances are that she spent her days cleaning, cooking and supporting him so he could make all his money? All she had to do was look good and **** him.

 

[stillman]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

PFSS, I would say one of the big reasons is left out of the list up there. Some men don't have children unless they know damn well they can afford them in the first place. They get the promotions first, then they get hitched (not the other way around).

So the dishwasher at the restaurant isn't going to bother having any kids this year, but the owners say hey why not? We can afford it.

 

[bladesyz]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

PFSS, I would say one of the big reasons is left out of the list up there. Some men don't have children unless they know damn well they can afford them in the first place. They get the promotions first, then they get hitched (not the other way around).

So the dishwasher at the restaurant isn't going to bother having any kids this year, but the owners say hey why not? We can afford it.

Huh, is that why people living in trailer parks have 7-8 kids while the average middle class urbanite has 1.6?

I also suggest you people to actually look up the family law in your area before making ignorant comments about how "unfair" it is to a man. In Ontario, it's pretty clear: if it can be proven that one partner sacrificed his or her potential financial gain during the marriage for the sake of the other partner, then he or she is entitled to compensation. i.e. If a woman quits her career to raise the kids and do chores so that her husband can work more comfortably, then she's entitled to some compensation if they divorce, the amount of which depends on years of marriage.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

So does that mean that if I marry a woman if my career goes down hill from there then she owes me money for not providing me with the right support? If I do well at work it seems to entitle her to rewards then shouldn't she be liable if things go bad?

If you're not earning as much then your alimony payments should, theoretically, nosedive. Her 'liability' is reduced alimony payments.

Bear in mind - if you're paying alimony you've been in a relationship where you have requested the government legally recognize you as a single financial unit (to varying extents depending on where you are) and that your property is recognized as jointly owned for several years.

But hey - if you don't want to pay alimony then no action at all is required on your part - just don't get married. And even if you do it still requires a fair bit of action on your part to make your wife your dependent, so if you do get married make sure to marry a woman who will keep working or is richer than you.

But I don't see what all this has to do with the original article.

I'm going to quote it again.

What do you think the chances are that she spent her days cleaning, cooking and supporting him so he could make all his money? All she had to do was look good and **** him.

I have mentioned several times that alimony for Joe Schmoo is a very different matter than for Joe Billionaire, and that the law is set up for the 99.99% of cases not the exceptional ones such as this. However a number of people here seem to be using this particular example to attack alimony as it applies to the general population.

As I said with regards to the original - it seems in high end cases the norm is to go in high and get argued down to average than to go in average and get argued down to low.

PFSS, I would say one of the big reasons is left out of the list up there. Some men don't have children unless they know damn well they can afford them in the first place. They get the promotions first, then they get hitched (not the other way around).

I would guess that those men are vastly outnumbered by deadbeat dads who are apparently so appalled by the idea of actually supporting their kids that they defy court orders to do so.

But that aside - I'm not exactly sure how your point relates to not paying alimony, can you please clarify.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

If you're not earning as much then your alimony payments should, theoretically, nosedive. Her 'liability' is reduced alimony payments.

What kind of system is that? So if I do well then she makes money on it even after we get divorced but if I go bankrupt then she losses nothing. She just goes out evenly. If she wants her "fair share" and credit for the money I make just for cooking and cleaning then she better be in for some of the risks too so if she divorces me when I'm low on money then she gets to go find herself a job and start paying me alimony.

 

[PFSS]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

What kind of system is that? So if I do well then she makes money on it even after we get divorced but if I go bankrupt then she losses nothing. She just goes out evenly. If she wants her "fair share" and credit for the money I make just for cooking and cleaning then she better be in for some of the risks too so if she divorces me when I'm low on money then she gets to go find herself a job and start paying me alimony.

Again - you're making some serious assumptions about why men and women get married - is there any danger you'll provide a source?

If your fortunes start to flounder after you divorce then surely that's evidence that she was benefiting you? However since her earnings were presumably zero during the marriage if she is earning that is evidence that you were holding her back - I'm not seeing any evidence that she spent years making you her dependent and that she financially benefited from years of being supported by you behind the scenes...

Again - if you do not want to pay alimony it requires ZERO action on your part. In the event you willingly agree to the first step down the road to paying alimony then avoiding it still requires very little action on your part - just don't make her your dependent for many years at a time. I'm not sure what the huge objection is... If you don't want to pay alimony then don't go down a road that has a huge "ALIMONY" sign over it.

 

[Johnny]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

Il just marry her then if she wants money after the divorce I'll do like OJ did.

 

[stillman]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

Just throwing it out there, PFSS, that some men make sure they're well off before having kids. Not sure how many use the family planning approach though compared to those who pop out kids so they can be abused and fend for themselves. It doesn't really tie in with the argument though, just putting it out there.

All I can say is that if everyone were forced by law to sign prenep agreements, many of these problems would be settled. I guess some people would complain that they don't get married with thoughts of divorce wrecking the mood, but then again people don't get fire insurance expecting their houses to burn down.

 

[krischan]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

Il just marry her then if she wants money after the divorce I'll do like OJ did.

Better do that before divorcing, that will save an extra amount of money and her heirs won't be a problem then as well.

Edit: Hmm, it looks as if I have a habit of stalking you. That's pure incidence, believe me...

 

[Dirty_Zulu]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

Il just marry her then if she wants money after the divorce I'll do like OJ did.

There was a trial and he was found innocent so in other words you'll do like OJ and pay up for murders someone committed?

 

[Johnny]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

There was a trial and he was found innocent

Sometimes the justice system makes mistakes and someone guilty gets away but we forgive it and just publicly shun him for the rest of his life.

 

[Garbad_the_Weak]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

Based on the DNA evidence alone, there is a 1 in 21 billion chance that OJ was not the killer.

 

[jhtvman]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

In Ontario, it's pretty clear: if it can be proven that one partner sacrificed his or her potential financial gain during the marriage for the sake of the other partner, then he or she is entitled to compensation. i.e. If a woman quits her career to raise the kids and do chores so that her husband can work more comfortably, then she's entitled to some compensation if they divorce, the amount of which depends on years of marriage.

Why should that be the case? If a person was willing to make that sort of sacrifice, why then shouldn't they live with the consequences of it if they can't keep their marriage together? I don't see why a person should be able to make a life-altering choice like that and then be able to demand money if things don't turn out the way they intended.

Think of it this way: If a basketball player signs a 7 year contract and then decides to walk away from the sport after just a year, should he be entitled to the other 6 years worth of payment? In the same way, if someone gets married and then decides not to live up to the whole "till death do us part" thing, should they be entitled to continued financial support from their former spouse?

 

[stephan]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

Think of it this way: If a basketball player signs a 7 year contract and then decides to walk away from the sport after just a year, should he be entitled to the other 6 years worth of payment?

No, but he should get payed for the first year.

In the same way, if someone gets married and then decides not to live up to the whole "till death do us part" thing, should they be entitled to continued financial support from their former spouse?

And now read the thing you quoted again.

 

[jhtvman]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

And now read the thing you quoted again.

I read it quite carefully, and there's no need to correct what I said. If a woman leaves a career behind to become a homemaker, she's still receiving the financial benefits of her husband's work: a place to live, food, clothes, and other things. She has those things for as long as she stays married. If she leaves, then she chooses to leave those things behind.

Addendum: Yes, same goes when roles are reversed because men can be homemakers too and all that.

 

[stephan]

Re: Alimony-- why pay

I read it quite carefully, and there's no need to correct what I said. If a woman leaves a career behind to become a homemaker, she's still receiving the financial benefits of her husband's work: a place to live, food, clothes, and other things.

The thing is that her raising the children/taking care of the house/whatever was not a decision she made just by herself. It was a decision of both husband and wife. What you are saying now is that the husband does not have to face any consequence of that decision and the wife should face all, while the husband still enjoys the benefits after the marriage.

What you are defending is strikingly similar to the basketball player leaving the team early and still getting payed the full 7 years.