6 ms·
> It's essentially unemployment benefits owed by the marriage as an association. 1) You don't get unemployment benefits for life. There is usually a limit. It
by DominikR 10y ago
> It's essentially unemployment benefits owed by the marriage as an association.
1) You don't get unemployment benefits for life. There is usually a limit. It is a free ride.
2) Women today expect men to share work at home equally. Not every couple does that but many do and most women do return to their jobs a few years after child birth. So what exactly should the women be reimbursed for?
- icebraining 10y agoLike I said, implementations vary and I don't mean to defend them all, just the core idea. And I'm not even necessarily a supporter of alimony at all; a system where such spouses got actual unemployment and other state benefits instead is probably preferable.
- exstudent2 10y agoI could see how the state paying may seem preferable at first glance but as a tax payer I absolutely do not want to be paying to support people post-divorce.
- DominikR 10y agoWe must change the legal framework so that women cannot effectively marry the state anymore. They are responsible for their own life choices just as any other person so I don't see why they should get a free ride.