2 ms·

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

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.

scarface74 6y ago
If we are getting divorced, how willing would I hypothetically be of supporting my wife? If I “wrote a contract”, should we have changed the contract every time that we made a decision for both of our benefit long term? 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? It’s highly specific for married couples to work together and make choices that benefit the household as a whole, but puts one at a financial disadvantage if they separate? That’s kind of a sad outlook on life and marriage. Yes, I am on my second marriage. I know the realities of divorce. Is it also highly unusual for one spouse to stay at home or take a lower paying job because it is beneficial to the family as a whole? (No, people go into education all of the time for just that reason). Is it very specific for one spouse to take a job just for the benefits while the other is able to make more by being self employed or starting a business? If a couple is not working together for the benefit of the family unit as a whole, something is wrong.
- 01100011 6y ago
  >If we are getting divorced, how willing would I hypothetically be of supporting my wife? Beats me. > If I “wrote a contract”, should we have changed the contract every time that we made a decision for both of our benefit long term? That should be up to you. I'm not trying to tell you what you have to do. That's the point. > puts one at a financial disadvantage if they separate Why is this a given? Your wife is still entitled to half of your accumulated wealth during the marriage. That's not what alimony is. Alimony is the continued support you are forced to provide. The examples you state are not a given and should not be the default assumption of a marriage contract. > If a couple is not working together for the benefit of the family unit as a whole, something is wrong. That's your opinion and should not be assumed by the state. Why is half the wealth accumulated during a marriage not restitution enough?
  - scarface74 6y ago
    If your spouse stayed at home supporting your family while you worked and built your career, but you didn’t accumulate savings early on. Your income stream is a marital “asset”. She helped you build that asset. Besides that “accumulated” assets are just that, “accumulated” over a span as your income increases. Would you be okay if you were 50/50 in a startup, worked hard early on and then when the other partner saw that the result of the early work was about to make a massive amount of money but hadn’t yet, they pushed you out, split the early assets and were able to enjoy the growth without you? Wouldn’t you feel entitled to the income stream? The stereotypical example is the wife working, while the husband goes to medical school and when they graduate, they leave the wife. At that point, they haven’t accumulated much in assets.
    - 01100011 6y ago
      You can recycle that example all you want but it only shows that there are specific circumstances and the assumption should not be baked in by default. Lets say you were 50/50 in a startup. You worked your youth away, sometimes 80 hour weeks. The other partner hung around and then did nothing but generate empty platitudes and empty promises for the next few years. Would you be ok if that partner sold their half of the company you built and then demanded indefinite royalties from you? The stereotypical example is just that. It is not true in many modern cases. It should not be the legal default. In my case, my partner started working and had a career when we met. I developed my skills while they sat idle. My income grew. They stopped working and made endless promises of building home based businesses that ate thousands of dollars and never went anywhere. To avoid having to follow through, they eventually got a minimum wage job again. I was at fault for not leaving sooner, but I believed in their talent and wanted to help them succeed. There was no 'family' for them to care for. I did my share of the chores and cooking, while spending my free time renovating the family home. For all my patience and work, I am now punished severely by the state. So you think that your example is so representative of the majority of marriages that your view should be forced on every young couple in America. Ok fine. So when the marriage ends, how long do you think that support should continue for? Should the state be able to force the high-income earner to work against their will as is the case now? Should the behavior of the low-earner during the marriage be a factor at all, as it currently is not?

scarface74 6y ago

If we are getting divorced, how willing would I hypothetically be of supporting my wife? If I “wrote a contract”, should we have changed the contract every time that we made a decision for both of our benefit long term? 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? It’s highly specific for married couples to work together and make choices that benefit the household as a whole, but puts one at a financial disadvantage if they separate? That’s kind of a sad outlook on life and marriage. Yes, I am on my second marriage. I know the realities of divorce. Is it also highly unusual for one spouse to stay at home or take a lower paying job because it is beneficial to the family as a whole? (No, people go into education all of the time for just that reason). Is it very specific for one spouse to take a job just for the benefits while the other is able to make more by being self employed or starting a business? If a couple is not working together for the benefit of the family unit as a whole, something is wrong.

01100011 6y ago
>If we are getting divorced, how willing would I hypothetically be of supporting my wife? Beats me. > If I “wrote a contract”, should we have changed the contract every time that we made a decision for both of our benefit long term? That should be up to you. I'm not trying to tell you what you have to do. That's the point. > puts one at a financial disadvantage if they separate Why is this a given? Your wife is still entitled to half of your accumulated wealth during the marriage. That's not what alimony is. Alimony is the continued support you are forced to provide. The examples you state are not a given and should not be the default assumption of a marriage contract. > If a couple is not working together for the benefit of the family unit as a whole, something is wrong. That's your opinion and should not be assumed by the state. Why is half the wealth accumulated during a marriage not restitution enough?
- scarface74 6y ago
  If your spouse stayed at home supporting your family while you worked and built your career, but you didn’t accumulate savings early on. Your income stream is a marital “asset”. She helped you build that asset. Besides that “accumulated” assets are just that, “accumulated” over a span as your income increases. Would you be okay if you were 50/50 in a startup, worked hard early on and then when the other partner saw that the result of the early work was about to make a massive amount of money but hadn’t yet, they pushed you out, split the early assets and were able to enjoy the growth without you? Wouldn’t you feel entitled to the income stream? The stereotypical example is the wife working, while the husband goes to medical school and when they graduate, they leave the wife. At that point, they haven’t accumulated much in assets.
  - 01100011 6y ago
    You can recycle that example all you want but it only shows that there are specific circumstances and the assumption should not be baked in by default. Lets say you were 50/50 in a startup. You worked your youth away, sometimes 80 hour weeks. The other partner hung around and then did nothing but generate empty platitudes and empty promises for the next few years. Would you be ok if that partner sold their half of the company you built and then demanded indefinite royalties from you? The stereotypical example is just that. It is not true in many modern cases. It should not be the legal default. In my case, my partner started working and had a career when we met. I developed my skills while they sat idle. My income grew. They stopped working and made endless promises of building home based businesses that ate thousands of dollars and never went anywhere. To avoid having to follow through, they eventually got a minimum wage job again. I was at fault for not leaving sooner, but I believed in their talent and wanted to help them succeed. There was no 'family' for them to care for. I did my share of the chores and cooking, while spending my free time renovating the family home. For all my patience and work, I am now punished severely by the state. So you think that your example is so representative of the majority of marriages that your view should be forced on every young couple in America. Ok fine. So when the marriage ends, how long do you think that support should continue for? Should the state be able to force the high-income earner to work against their will as is the case now? Should the behavior of the low-earner during the marriage be a factor at all, as it currently is not?