16 ms·

Somewhat off-topic, but here's how it works today: For a long term marriage in which one spouse never worked, that spouse will likely receive spousal maintenanc

Somewhat off-topic, but here's how it works today: For a long term marriage in which one spouse never worked, that spouse will likely receive spousal maintenance (alimony) calculated based on the last four years of income from the earning spouse. That will be owned in perpetuity regardless of future earning power. And if you can't pay it, expect to be found in contempt of court, and possibly see prison time.

isostatic 8y ago
What country? Citation?
- holdenc 8y ago
  Country: USA Citation: https://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/12/divorcee_sits_in_jail_while_ua.html https://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/...
  - dragonwriter 8y ago
    That story does not support the claim it is offered to support.
Broken_Hippo 8y ago
Yup, because what should happen is that the working spouse should leave the non-working spouse penniless and homeless, especially if they have been married 20-40 years. I will, however, add that not everywhere does any sort of alimony - not every state in the US does it, even, and I can only imagine the difference between countries. I originally from Indiana, which only allows such thing in a limited number of cases. There aren't laws that provide for it. If your spouse leaves, you are just out of luck - though you might be entitled to some retirement benefits.
- holdenc 8y ago
  In most cases marital assets are split evenly, including future social security payments to the non-working spouse. Permanent alimony creates an extreme burden because it is not sensitive to changes in the primary earner's circumstances.
- black-tea 8y ago
  > Yup, because what should happen is that the working spouse should leave the non-working spouse penniless and homeless, especially if they have been married 20-40 years. Unfortunately most divorces are initiated by women. Should the man still be required to pay alimony in such cases? What if the man initiates it due to cheating? Women tend to receive alimony in all cases which is pretty disgusting.
  - watwut 8y ago
    If they both agreed on her taking care of kids+house and not working and him focusing on career not being limited by kids+house, yes. Effective way to avoid this is to not arrange things this way. She won't get alimony if she kept her career. Also, working women are more likely to ask for divorce. Being stay at home when relationship turns bad is sorta trap even with alimony.
    - hopler 8y ago
      The trick of it really is that being a homemaker had gotten exponentially easier over the last century thanks to automation, creating an awkward imbalance in responsibilities where one person works 40+ hrs plus half of nights/weekends work, and the other works a relatively casual home job plus half the nights and weekends work
      - watwut 8y ago
        Sure. I am not advocating long term homemakers in today's world. I think that women including moms going to work is good development. But also, I would rather be the one going to work then the one at home. I was at home for some time so I can compare the two - unless job is really shitty it is better then completely pointless day after pointless day. But I also get how easily ressentment on other side settle too when job is not perfect. Today it is done either as a value thing (e.g. conservative Christian who believe this is morally right) or for convenience - you actually can't work 40+ hrs plus half of nights/weekends while doing half childcare. Staying at home allows partners career to be unaffected by home. When couple decide they want to split things that way and we're like that for long years, then it makes sense that the one whose career and salary is benefiting pay the other one who lost employemen possibilities. I have however never claimed the above is reasonable or preferable split at all ( unless you both have 4 kids or something). I am all for moms working and for partners to share both household work and both earn.
- danmaz74 8y ago
  All-or-nothing is a false dichotomy. It should depend on age, time spent together, and possibly other circumstances.
  - alexis_fr 8y ago
    ...and whether she stopped working for the kids, and whether the father was given the possibility to be the one that stops working for the kids. I’m surprised that so many people assume men have much choice. They’re often put in that position de facto, and they do checkout of marriage because the rules are unbalanced worldwide. Between 42% and 75% people in Japan, depending on how you ask the question, plan not to marry or not to even seek love. In USA, MGTOWs get a lot of hate because they checkout of the idea of a romantic relationship. They are explicitly forbidden in the ToS of Vimeo. Today it is forbidden to talk to men about the risks and the number of females who adopt toxic behavior in marriage, and the sole accepted answer is usually: « That’s why it’s important to discuss with your wife ». When people say « Well, men have accepted the contract of marriage, they should suffer the consequences », first I hear no such obligation about women, but men do massively fight the unbalanced rules of the contract, and are humiliated by society when they do it.
    - watwut 8y ago
      On average, men are better off financially after divorce and women worst off financially after divorce. However, women are happier after divorce then men who are more lonely and depressive. Then again men are more likely to find another partner.
    - vertex-four 8y ago
      MGTOW don’t merely “check out of the idea of a romantic relationship” and proceed to focus on something positive and healthy - plenty of people do that ime, they’re happy being single and focusing on work or hobbies or what-have-you - instead they spend their time spreading misogynistic hate wherever they’re not banned, and using bans as further evidence that women have taken over the world rather than reflection on their own behaviour. Look at it this way: “I think society should put less expectation on men to be the primary provider while women care for children and the home, and both should be expected to take equal roles in both”, would be a perfectly reasonable approach to solving the problem of childbirth affecting women’s careers (the problem that alimony is currently meant to solve) that everybody could agree with... and in fact feminists have been arguing for a very long time. MGTOW don’t argue that because they don’t actually want that - they often seem to actually want those traditional roles, but don’t want to make things right if a relationship fails.
- ghostwriter 8y ago
  http://www.realworlddivorce.com/Indiana http://www.realworlddivorce.com/Indiana
dragonwriter 8y ago
> For a long term marriage in which one spouse never worked, that spouse will likely receive spousal maintenance (alimony) calculated based on the last four years of income from the earning spouse. That will be owned in perpetuity regardless of future earning power. That's...highly variable between different jurisdictions, even within the US, since every state’s family law is different (and support formulas and practices may even vary by county within states.) AFAIK, most states adjust spousal support periodically (of allow parties to request modifications) based on circumstances of both parties except in the case of a settlement specifying permanent fixed support, and the trend is away from true permanent support (even at variable levels) except where the supported spouse genuinely cannot become employable.
telesilla 8y ago
Consider, if a marriage is a partnership and in this partnership it is agreed by both consenting parties that one will work and one will not, then that's an agreement entered into knowing, full well, that should the relationship end then there will be such consequences. Anyone who complains about those consequences down the road might wish to consider the relationship from the beginning: good communication from day one goes a long way to avoiding such eventualities being a surprise.
- alexis_fr 8y ago
  If it was agreed by both parties that the spouse wouldn’t work. The woman leaving their job because they now have a husband that supports her was never supposed to be part of the deal. When it’s part of the deal, it is supposed to be temporary while the children grow up, not a permanent right of the wife to cease supporting her lifestyle. It was supposed to help the children. Marriage was for the children initially.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
  - lotsofpulp 8y ago
    It seems plausible to me that societies that developed a marriage type situation could have benefited from more stability due to men being more settled (or at least having the veneer of being settled) and not competing with each other for every woman they see. Otherwise, it seems possible we could end up with a situation where 20% of men get 80% of women like many other species and the males have to keep fighting each other to determine who gets them.
    - 1000units 8y ago
      We've outlawed dueling yet we've also dismantled the traditional institution of marriage. These are very strange times.
      - Retric 8y ago
ransom1538 8y ago
"and possibly see prison time". You will see jail time. US family debtors [child support, wife support, etc] are a large portion of the US jail system. Sentences are particularly cruel since it is often not your fault: loss of employment, serious housing crises, etc. Ironically, once you enter into the jail system for non payment (non-employement) - you will probably lose any FUTURE job opportunities. Here is a guy explaining why he can't 'work' - applied for 50 jobs - off to jail says the judge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvOIdhJg1As https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvOIdhJg1As
- BucketSort 8y ago
  Quite the dystopian society we've created for ourselves. Every day I feel like my soul is burning in the fires of hell.
- quickthrower2 8y ago
  And from the various Netflix docos I've watched, it seems that jail can be worse than prison. New inmates coming in and out all the time, sleeping on the communal floor due to overcrowding etc.
- gizmo686 8y ago
  Don't the courts ammend child support when your income changes? I didn't watch the full video, but from what I saw, the man claimed to have filed an updated financial disclosure, which the judge was unable to find.
  - deleted 8y ago
    [deleted]
1ste 8y ago
Does this mean that if the working spouses loses their job, and then gets a new job with a lower salary, they will still be paying the higher amount of alimony?
- bryanrasmussen 8y ago
  that's what I understand the law to be in my country.
- hopler 8y ago
  In USA it's usually expressed as a percentage of income and a mandatory willingness to generate income.
  - x220 8y ago
    >mandatory willingness This is the most Orwellian term I've heard all week. I think a better word for this is "slavery".
obvs_throwaway 8y ago
As someone going through a divorce right now I can say that these claims are wildly overstated, and in quite a few places completely incorrect. Permanent alimony is only awarded in 7 US states, and I know that at least in one of those, NJ, it's certainly not guaranteed and can be negotiated around. In the state I'm getting a divorce in and the state I'm currently living in the cap is 1/2 the term of the marriage. Additionally divorce is a complex process that is largely about handling the cases where the two parties cannot agree. If both parties agree a divorce can be finished in an afternoon and the outcome can be whatever both parties agree to pay. But even in a highly contested divorce there is still a lot of room for negotiation. Even in states that allow permanent alimony this can be negotiated. It's pretty rare that your divorce won't settle before the final court date. Furthermore, even if your ex-spouse is awarded permanent alimony, you can always go back to court if your earnings is severely limited. No court in the world is going to make you pay alimony based on a $100k income if you end up being forced to make $40k.
- dnautics 8y ago
  > "you can always go back to court if your earnings is severely limited" That's nontrivial. Court takes a lot of time.
  - Gibbon1 8y ago
    Court doesn't take time, documenting takes time.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  Yeah in California mostly it's about child support and division of property. No one gets permanent alimony. Also in the highly contested divorces I've seen up close, no one actually 'wins'
- ADent 8y ago
  Seems like in Colorado it can only last until full retirement age - 67.

isostatic 8y ago

What country? Citation?

holdenc 8y ago
Country: USA Citation: https://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/12/divorcee_sits_in_jail_while_ua.html https://www.nj.com/hunterdon-county-democrat/index.ssf/2012/...
- dragonwriter 8y ago
  That story does not support the claim it is offered to support.

Broken_Hippo 8y ago

Yup, because what should happen is that the working spouse should leave the non-working spouse penniless and homeless, especially if they have been married 20-40 years. I will, however, add that not everywhere does any sort of alimony - not every state in the US does it, even, and I can only imagine the difference between countries. I originally from Indiana, which only allows such thing in a limited number of cases. There aren't laws that provide for it. If your spouse leaves, you are just out of luck - though you might be entitled to some retirement benefits.

holdenc 8y ago
In most cases marital assets are split evenly, including future social security payments to the non-working spouse. Permanent alimony creates an extreme burden because it is not sensitive to changes in the primary earner's circumstances.
black-tea 8y ago
> Yup, because what should happen is that the working spouse should leave the non-working spouse penniless and homeless, especially if they have been married 20-40 years. Unfortunately most divorces are initiated by women. Should the man still be required to pay alimony in such cases? What if the man initiates it due to cheating? Women tend to receive alimony in all cases which is pretty disgusting.
- watwut 8y ago
  If they both agreed on her taking care of kids+house and not working and him focusing on career not being limited by kids+house, yes. Effective way to avoid this is to not arrange things this way. She won't get alimony if she kept her career. Also, working women are more likely to ask for divorce. Being stay at home when relationship turns bad is sorta trap even with alimony.
  - hopler 8y ago
    The trick of it really is that being a homemaker had gotten exponentially easier over the last century thanks to automation, creating an awkward imbalance in responsibilities where one person works 40+ hrs plus half of nights/weekends work, and the other works a relatively casual home job plus half the nights and weekends work
    - watwut 8y ago
      Sure. I am not advocating long term homemakers in today's world. I think that women including moms going to work is good development. But also, I would rather be the one going to work then the one at home. I was at home for some time so I can compare the two - unless job is really shitty it is better then completely pointless day after pointless day. But I also get how easily ressentment on other side settle too when job is not perfect. Today it is done either as a value thing (e.g. conservative Christian who believe this is morally right) or for convenience - you actually can't work 40+ hrs plus half of nights/weekends while doing half childcare. Staying at home allows partners career to be unaffected by home. When couple decide they want to split things that way and we're like that for long years, then it makes sense that the one whose career and salary is benefiting pay the other one who lost employemen possibilities. I have however never claimed the above is reasonable or preferable split at all ( unless you both have 4 kids or something). I am all for moms working and for partners to share both household work and both earn.
danmaz74 8y ago
All-or-nothing is a false dichotomy. It should depend on age, time spent together, and possibly other circumstances.
- alexis_fr 8y ago
  ...and whether she stopped working for the kids, and whether the father was given the possibility to be the one that stops working for the kids. I’m surprised that so many people assume men have much choice. They’re often put in that position de facto, and they do checkout of marriage because the rules are unbalanced worldwide. Between 42% and 75% people in Japan, depending on how you ask the question, plan not to marry or not to even seek love. In USA, MGTOWs get a lot of hate because they checkout of the idea of a romantic relationship. They are explicitly forbidden in the ToS of Vimeo. Today it is forbidden to talk to men about the risks and the number of females who adopt toxic behavior in marriage, and the sole accepted answer is usually: « That’s why it’s important to discuss with your wife ». When people say « Well, men have accepted the contract of marriage, they should suffer the consequences », first I hear no such obligation about women, but men do massively fight the unbalanced rules of the contract, and are humiliated by society when they do it.
  - watwut 8y ago
    On average, men are better off financially after divorce and women worst off financially after divorce. However, women are happier after divorce then men who are more lonely and depressive. Then again men are more likely to find another partner.
  - vertex-four 8y ago
    MGTOW don’t merely “check out of the idea of a romantic relationship” and proceed to focus on something positive and healthy - plenty of people do that ime, they’re happy being single and focusing on work or hobbies or what-have-you - instead they spend their time spreading misogynistic hate wherever they’re not banned, and using bans as further evidence that women have taken over the world rather than reflection on their own behaviour. Look at it this way: “I think society should put less expectation on men to be the primary provider while women care for children and the home, and both should be expected to take equal roles in both”, would be a perfectly reasonable approach to solving the problem of childbirth affecting women’s careers (the problem that alimony is currently meant to solve) that everybody could agree with... and in fact feminists have been arguing for a very long time. MGTOW don’t argue that because they don’t actually want that - they often seem to actually want those traditional roles, but don’t want to make things right if a relationship fails.
ghostwriter 8y ago
http://www.realworlddivorce.com/Indiana http://www.realworlddivorce.com/Indiana

dragonwriter 8y ago

> For a long term marriage in which one spouse never worked, that spouse will likely receive spousal maintenance (alimony) calculated based on the last four years of income from the earning spouse. That will be owned in perpetuity regardless of future earning power. That's...highly variable between different jurisdictions, even within the US, since every state’s family law is different (and support formulas and practices may even vary by county within states.) AFAIK, most states adjust spousal support periodically (of allow parties to request modifications) based on circumstances of both parties except in the case of a settlement specifying permanent fixed support, and the trend is away from true permanent support (even at variable levels) except where the supported spouse genuinely cannot become employable.

telesilla 8y ago

Consider, if a marriage is a partnership and in this partnership it is agreed by both consenting parties that one will work and one will not, then that's an agreement entered into knowing, full well, that should the relationship end then there will be such consequences. Anyone who complains about those consequences down the road might wish to consider the relationship from the beginning: good communication from day one goes a long way to avoiding such eventualities being a surprise.

alexis_fr 8y ago
If it was agreed by both parties that the spouse wouldn’t work. The woman leaving their job because they now have a husband that supports her was never supposed to be part of the deal. When it’s part of the deal, it is supposed to be temporary while the children grow up, not a permanent right of the wife to cease supporting her lifestyle. It was supposed to help the children. Marriage was for the children initially.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]
- lotsofpulp 8y ago
  It seems plausible to me that societies that developed a marriage type situation could have benefited from more stability due to men being more settled (or at least having the veneer of being settled) and not competing with each other for every woman they see. Otherwise, it seems possible we could end up with a situation where 20% of men get 80% of women like many other species and the males have to keep fighting each other to determine who gets them.
  - 1000units 8y ago
    We've outlawed dueling yet we've also dismantled the traditional institution of marriage. These are very strange times.
    - Retric 8y ago

ransom1538 8y ago

"and possibly see prison time". You will see jail time. US family debtors [child support, wife support, etc] are a large portion of the US jail system. Sentences are particularly cruel since it is often not your fault: loss of employment, serious housing crises, etc. Ironically, once you enter into the jail system for non payment (non-employement) - you will probably lose any FUTURE job opportunities. Here is a guy explaining why he can't 'work' - applied for 50 jobs - off to jail says the judge. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvOIdhJg1As https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AvOIdhJg1As

BucketSort 8y ago
Quite the dystopian society we've created for ourselves. Every day I feel like my soul is burning in the fires of hell.
quickthrower2 8y ago
And from the various Netflix docos I've watched, it seems that jail can be worse than prison. New inmates coming in and out all the time, sleeping on the communal floor due to overcrowding etc.
gizmo686 8y ago
Don't the courts ammend child support when your income changes? I didn't watch the full video, but from what I saw, the man claimed to have filed an updated financial disclosure, which the judge was unable to find.
- deleted 8y ago
  [deleted]

1ste 8y ago

Does this mean that if the working spouses loses their job, and then gets a new job with a lower salary, they will still be paying the higher amount of alimony?

bryanrasmussen 8y ago
that's what I understand the law to be in my country.
hopler 8y ago
In USA it's usually expressed as a percentage of income and a mandatory willingness to generate income.
- x220 8y ago
  >mandatory willingness This is the most Orwellian term I've heard all week. I think a better word for this is "slavery".

obvs_throwaway 8y ago

As someone going through a divorce right now I can say that these claims are wildly overstated, and in quite a few places completely incorrect. Permanent alimony is only awarded in 7 US states, and I know that at least in one of those, NJ, it's certainly not guaranteed and can be negotiated around. In the state I'm getting a divorce in and the state I'm currently living in the cap is 1/2 the term of the marriage. Additionally divorce is a complex process that is largely about handling the cases where the two parties cannot agree. If both parties agree a divorce can be finished in an afternoon and the outcome can be whatever both parties agree to pay. But even in a highly contested divorce there is still a lot of room for negotiation. Even in states that allow permanent alimony this can be negotiated. It's pretty rare that your divorce won't settle before the final court date. Furthermore, even if your ex-spouse is awarded permanent alimony, you can always go back to court if your earnings is severely limited. No court in the world is going to make you pay alimony based on a $100k income if you end up being forced to make $40k.

dnautics 8y ago
> "you can always go back to court if your earnings is severely limited" That's nontrivial. Court takes a lot of time.
- Gibbon1 8y ago
  Court doesn't take time, documenting takes time.
Gibbon1 8y ago
Yeah in California mostly it's about child support and division of property. No one gets permanent alimony. Also in the highly contested divorces I've seen up close, no one actually 'wins'
ADent 8y ago
Seems like in Colorado it can only last until full retirement age - 67.