5 ms·

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Reform alimony now. Force consistent rules at the federal level. Make childless divorces straightforward and fair.

I've said it before and I'll say it again: Reform alimony now. Force consistent rules at the federal level. Make childless divorces straightforward and fair. Eliminate the notion that a former spouse is responsible for maintaining a 'standard of living' established during the marriage. If two adults want to part ways, make them responsible for being adults. To anyone not married, please understand what you are agreeing to by getting married. It is a legally binding contract that has nothing to do with romanticized notions of true love. There is an industry of people looking to profit from you and exploit you. Be extremely careful who you enter into that contract with.

valuearb 6y ago
Plus the Trump tax “cuts” actually removed the tax deductibility of alimony from the payer, and made it tax free for the recipient. So if you make $150,000, and pay $65,000 of that in alimony to your ex, your ex can end up with a higher net income.
- bradenb 6y ago
  This actually is a broken part IMO. I’ve read that it actually just hurts both parties because a judge still must try to maintain an equivalent QOL but since alimony is paid from post-tax income now they cannot afford as much so less is taken. Likewise, even though it is tax-free for the recipient, since less is taken they often end up with less. I can’t remember where I read this but I’ll see if I can track down a source.
  - kilburn 6y ago
    It makes sense. Income taxes are progressive, which means you pay (percentually) more the more you earn. Let's see an example. Say that the payer earns 120k pre-tax. Now: a) If you tax the recipient the judge orders a 60k/60k split. After the split both parties get taxed for 60k, which lands them on the 22% marginal tax rate bracket. In the end each party effectively pays 11k in taxes, and hence gets 49k post-taxes. b) If you tax the earner they pay taxes first, hitting the 24% tax rate bracket and effectively paying ~29k in taxes. So you spit the remaining 91k and each party gets 45.5k post-taxes. Definitely a lose-lose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Marginal_tax_rates_for_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State...
  - valuearb 6y ago
    I believe the reasoning was a simple tax grab. They saw the deduction as some sort of dodge allowing someone making $200,000 a year and paying $50,000 a year in alimony, to move that $50k in income from a high tax brackets to a low brackets, even though now these are two separate people legally.
bradenb 6y ago
On the one hand you say spouses should not be responsible for maintaining a standard of living but on the other you say people should know what they’re getting into with marriage. This cuts both ways. If you don’t want to be solely responsible for someone else’s standard of living then maybe make sure they plan to be self-sufficient BEFORE you get married. Or sign a prenup. Alimony is no secret. This becomes even more unrealistic when you introduce the concept of a “homemaker.” Usually that involves kids but it doesn’t necessarily have to. If a couple decides to have one get an education and a paying job and the other has responsibilities around the home then that is how they’ve chosen to divide their labor. You can’t just maintain a balance for your marriage but come divorce time say “oh well, they can take care of themself.” The working spouse has a massive head start and the non-working spouse has (possibly unwillingly) had a massive downgrade in QOL forced on them. Alimony seeks to create equality. Either equality in success or equality in hardship. It probably isn’t a perfect system and I’ve seen instances where it is massively abused but I don’t think the concept or execution is overly flawed. Perhaps too many adults are jumping into marriage without fully understanding what it means and how it might end.
- 01100011 6y ago
  People change. The ex in my case was self sufficient when I met her and then chose not to be. Was I supposed to withhold food and shelter from her to force her back into the workforce? Alimony was not obvious to me as a 21 year old introverted virgin getting married. If you want a specific arrangement then you should draft it in your marriage contract. It should not be the default assumption imposed by the state under the threat of incarceration. Alimony is an antiquated concept based on outdated gender stereotypes and not in line with the modern workforce. Alimony seeks to create equality when none should exist. Alimony rewards deadbeats and forces exploitative relationships to continue, often indefinitely or without end. It is abusive to many, it is unjust, and it must be reformed.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    What about the case where the couple both agreed that the wife should leave the workforce to stay at home with the kids? After kids are grown, they get a divorce and then what?
todd3834 6y ago
There is rarely anything straightforward in a divorce. Children make things a lot harder but they are not the only thing. Both parties have made sacrifices and both parties often contribute to success. I’m not that familiar with the standard of living laws but if my wife and I broke up I would feel horrible if she had to severely down grade her lifestyle. I hold the position of the primary earner. My salary is several factors bigger than what she makes. However, she takes care of so many things for me that I can focus on earning. We are partners. She has easily earned her way. If we got divorced, I would still get to benefit from the position I was able to rise to with her help. She deserves to be taken care of.
- Yetanfou 6y ago
  > ...if my wife and I broke up I would feel horrible if she had to severely down grade her lifestyle. Would that not depend very much on the reason why you broke up? If it was because of a mutual conclusion of the relationship I can imagine this would be true. If you break up because you found out she'd been cheating on every occasion, shuffling money and attention towards her many side affairs, spreading rumours about your you and otherwise doing her best to play the black widow you probably would reconsider. If not, why not?
  - todd3834 6y ago
    This would be tragic but it wouldn’t change the fact that she helped me get where I am. My ego and pride would want her to get nothing but those two things rarely cause me to think rationally. Someone once said, “when you forgive someone you let a prisoner free. The surprising thing is that prisoner is yourself”. So I hope I would have the strength to forgive her, and hope the best for her life going forward.
    - 01100011 6y ago
      She would be rewarded with half of your accumulated wealth during the marriage. Isn't that fair? Why should you also have to continue paying her after she has stopped supporting you? What do you think a fair timeline for that support should be? A year? Five years? Half the length of the marriage? Indefinitely?
ashtonkem 6y ago
Maintaining the same standard of living is impossible under the same revenue. I live in a 2bd apartment; renting two 1bds would cost more than one 2bd. I’d have to go from one car to two, and a huge array of personal expenses would either get duplicated (power, Internet), or would become more expensive for the same amount (food, cell phone).
- 01100011 6y ago
  Yes, usually the standard of living for everyone drops after the marriage. If the higher earner goes on to make more money, the lower-earning spouse can, in CA anyway, ask you for more money up to what it takes to provide the standard of living established in the marriage.
newyankee 6y ago
It should be a simple contract with a checklist type of design and something that hopefully can be customized to a degree by both the parties.
scarface74 6y ago
My now wife was a completely self sufficient mother of two living in one of the best school systems in our metro area. We had been dating for a little while and were definitely in the “pre-engagement” phase but knew where things were headed. We both were laid off when the company we worked for went out of business. She already had a job lined up making less, but she couldn’t afford to be without health insurance. I had a contract lined up making more. I promised her if she took the job, I could make up the gap and I did. A few months later, one week after I proposed, my contract abruptly ended. She said, forget about the ceremony, let’s go to the courthouse, get married so I could get on her insurance. I found another contract shortly thereafter. Six months later, I had a full time job, and her hours were crazy (tech support for a carrier) and my (step)sons were missing her and it wasn’t helping our marriage. We talked about her quitting and finding something with better hours for the sake of all of us. Fast forward seven years later. We are both working and she is back to making what she was before we got married. The hours weren’t bad, but it still caused a commute and our youngest son was going through teenage issues. Again we decided for her to take a lower paying job closer. The job paid less, but had good benefits. That allowed me to leave a full time job to take a contract to perm job that would let me lead two green field projects. It would be a great career booster. Four years later, that led me down the road of having a job making $100K more. Covid hit, her job would have involved her being in the school system. We talked, and again, it wasn’t best for any of us for her to be exposed. She quit her job before school starts back. Of course by now we have the big house in the burbs. Our lives and her decision to make herself completely dependent on me was based entirely on her trusting me and taking me at my word. On the other hand, there is a direct line to my current income from here supporting me. How is it right for her to be left on the street penniless when she would be in that position solely because she trusted me?
- 01100011 6y ago
  Is there anything I proposed which would prevent you from voluntarily supporting her after a divorce? Do you often feel that the highly specific situation you find yourself in should be the basis for laws applied without cause to the rest of society? If you have an arrangement like that, put it in a contract yourself. Don't ask the government to force me to live by your rules.

valuearb 6y ago

Plus the Trump tax “cuts” actually removed the tax deductibility of alimony from the payer, and made it tax free for the recipient. So if you make $150,000, and pay $65,000 of that in alimony to your ex, your ex can end up with a higher net income.

bradenb 6y ago
This actually is a broken part IMO. I’ve read that it actually just hurts both parties because a judge still must try to maintain an equivalent QOL but since alimony is paid from post-tax income now they cannot afford as much so less is taken. Likewise, even though it is tax-free for the recipient, since less is taken they often end up with less. I can’t remember where I read this but I’ll see if I can track down a source.
- kilburn 6y ago
  It makes sense. Income taxes are progressive, which means you pay (percentually) more the more you earn. Let's see an example. Say that the payer earns 120k pre-tax. Now: a) If you tax the recipient the judge orders a 60k/60k split. After the split both parties get taxed for 60k, which lands them on the 22% marginal tax rate bracket. In the end each party effectively pays 11k in taxes, and hence gets 49k post-taxes. b) If you tax the earner they pay taxes first, hitting the 24% tax rate bracket and effectively paying ~29k in taxes. So you spit the remaining 91k and each party gets 45.5k post-taxes. Definitely a lose-lose. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_States#Marginal_tax_rates_for_2019 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_tax_in_the_United_State...
- valuearb 6y ago
  I believe the reasoning was a simple tax grab. They saw the deduction as some sort of dodge allowing someone making $200,000 a year and paying $50,000 a year in alimony, to move that $50k in income from a high tax brackets to a low brackets, even though now these are two separate people legally.

bradenb 6y ago

On the one hand you say spouses should not be responsible for maintaining a standard of living but on the other you say people should know what they’re getting into with marriage. This cuts both ways. If you don’t want to be solely responsible for someone else’s standard of living then maybe make sure they plan to be self-sufficient BEFORE you get married. Or sign a prenup. Alimony is no secret. This becomes even more unrealistic when you introduce the concept of a “homemaker.” Usually that involves kids but it doesn’t necessarily have to. If a couple decides to have one get an education and a paying job and the other has responsibilities around the home then that is how they’ve chosen to divide their labor. You can’t just maintain a balance for your marriage but come divorce time say “oh well, they can take care of themself.” The working spouse has a massive head start and the non-working spouse has (possibly unwillingly) had a massive downgrade in QOL forced on them. Alimony seeks to create equality. Either equality in success or equality in hardship. It probably isn’t a perfect system and I’ve seen instances where it is massively abused but I don’t think the concept or execution is overly flawed. Perhaps too many adults are jumping into marriage without fully understanding what it means and how it might end.

01100011 6y ago
People change. The ex in my case was self sufficient when I met her and then chose not to be. Was I supposed to withhold food and shelter from her to force her back into the workforce? Alimony was not obvious to me as a 21 year old introverted virgin getting married. If you want a specific arrangement then you should draft it in your marriage contract. It should not be the default assumption imposed by the state under the threat of incarceration. Alimony is an antiquated concept based on outdated gender stereotypes and not in line with the modern workforce. Alimony seeks to create equality when none should exist. Alimony rewards deadbeats and forces exploitative relationships to continue, often indefinitely or without end. It is abusive to many, it is unjust, and it must be reformed.
- scarface74 6y ago
  What about the case where the couple both agreed that the wife should leave the workforce to stay at home with the kids? After kids are grown, they get a divorce and then what?

todd3834 6y ago

There is rarely anything straightforward in a divorce. Children make things a lot harder but they are not the only thing. Both parties have made sacrifices and both parties often contribute to success. I’m not that familiar with the standard of living laws but if my wife and I broke up I would feel horrible if she had to severely down grade her lifestyle. I hold the position of the primary earner. My salary is several factors bigger than what she makes. However, she takes care of so many things for me that I can focus on earning. We are partners. She has easily earned her way. If we got divorced, I would still get to benefit from the position I was able to rise to with her help. She deserves to be taken care of.

Yetanfou 6y ago
> ...if my wife and I broke up I would feel horrible if she had to severely down grade her lifestyle. Would that not depend very much on the reason why you broke up? If it was because of a mutual conclusion of the relationship I can imagine this would be true. If you break up because you found out she'd been cheating on every occasion, shuffling money and attention towards her many side affairs, spreading rumours about your you and otherwise doing her best to play the black widow you probably would reconsider. If not, why not?
- todd3834 6y ago
  This would be tragic but it wouldn’t change the fact that she helped me get where I am. My ego and pride would want her to get nothing but those two things rarely cause me to think rationally. Someone once said, “when you forgive someone you let a prisoner free. The surprising thing is that prisoner is yourself”. So I hope I would have the strength to forgive her, and hope the best for her life going forward.
  - 01100011 6y ago
    She would be rewarded with half of your accumulated wealth during the marriage. Isn't that fair? Why should you also have to continue paying her after she has stopped supporting you? What do you think a fair timeline for that support should be? A year? Five years? Half the length of the marriage? Indefinitely?

ashtonkem 6y ago

Maintaining the same standard of living is impossible under the same revenue. I live in a 2bd apartment; renting two 1bds would cost more than one 2bd. I’d have to go from one car to two, and a huge array of personal expenses would either get duplicated (power, Internet), or would become more expensive for the same amount (food, cell phone).

01100011 6y ago
Yes, usually the standard of living for everyone drops after the marriage. If the higher earner goes on to make more money, the lower-earning spouse can, in CA anyway, ask you for more money up to what it takes to provide the standard of living established in the marriage.

newyankee 6y ago

It should be a simple contract with a checklist type of design and something that hopefully can be customized to a degree by both the parties.

scarface74 6y ago

My now wife was a completely self sufficient mother of two living in one of the best school systems in our metro area. We had been dating for a little while and were definitely in the “pre-engagement” phase but knew where things were headed. We both were laid off when the company we worked for went out of business. She already had a job lined up making less, but she couldn’t afford to be without health insurance. I had a contract lined up making more. I promised her if she took the job, I could make up the gap and I did. A few months later, one week after I proposed, my contract abruptly ended. She said, forget about the ceremony, let’s go to the courthouse, get married so I could get on her insurance. I found another contract shortly thereafter. Six months later, I had a full time job, and her hours were crazy (tech support for a carrier) and my (step)sons were missing her and it wasn’t helping our marriage. We talked about her quitting and finding something with better hours for the sake of all of us. Fast forward seven years later. We are both working and she is back to making what she was before we got married. The hours weren’t bad, but it still caused a commute and our youngest son was going through teenage issues. Again we decided for her to take a lower paying job closer. The job paid less, but had good benefits. That allowed me to leave a full time job to take a contract to perm job that would let me lead two green field projects. It would be a great career booster. Four years later, that led me down the road of having a job making $100K more. Covid hit, her job would have involved her being in the school system. We talked, and again, it wasn’t best for any of us for her to be exposed. She quit her job before school starts back. Of course by now we have the big house in the burbs. Our lives and her decision to make herself completely dependent on me was based entirely on her trusting me and taking me at my word. On the other hand, there is a direct line to my current income from here supporting me. How is it right for her to be left on the street penniless when she would be in that position solely because she trusted me?

01100011 6y ago
Is there anything I proposed which would prevent you from voluntarily supporting her after a divorce? Do you often feel that the highly specific situation you find yourself in should be the basis for laws applied without cause to the rest of society? If you have an arrangement like that, put it in a contract yourself. Don't ask the government to force me to live by your rules.