5 ms·

Does this handle potential alimony? That’s the thing that scares me about getting divorced. A friend of mine confided in me that their partner hasn’t worked si

Does this handle potential alimony? That’s the thing that scares me about getting divorced. A friend of mine confided in me that their partner hasn’t worked since they been married and is afraid that ending the relationship would put them in a deep alimony situation. Unfortunate side effect of living in a high cost are sure but I understand their frustration

nickMMM 4y ago
Yep it calculates alimony payments (called spousal maintenance in NY). It's based on income, length of relationship etc. In NY, you can actually negotiate out of alimony (eg trade it for some more assets).
chrsig 4y ago
It shouldn't be that scary. I've been married coming up on 10 years in January. I've been the sole income provider for a large majority of the marriage. I wouldn't be able to make the income that I do without the contributions my wife has made to making my life easier, and in general keeping the more administrative aspects of life under control. I'm in a marriage with her because I love her and respect her. Part of that is recognizing that it is our income. Part of that is recognizing that even if our marriage were to decay to the point of divorce that I would still care enough about her as a person to want her to be able to establish a new life. I'd advise the friend of yours to create a relationship their spouse wants to be in. That's how you prevent the downsides of alimony.
- lazide 4y ago
  That is good advice. Unfortunately, it also requires both parties to be working towards that goal - which doesn't always happen. If that doesn't happen, yes alimony can get very, very expensive.
- philliphaydon 4y ago
  You don’t have to answer but I would like to ask. > I wouldn't be able to make the income that I do without the contributions my wife has made to making my life easier, and in general keeping the more administrative aspects of life under control. If you were to divorce would you find it reasonable for her to get 50%? Because I would seem as tho she gave up (willingly in support of you) a career for you. And after divorce wouldn’t be able to maintain any sort of lifestyle as a result of having no career or work experience?
  - notch656a 4y ago
    Seems reasonable to me she would get the 50% from during the marriage, but nothing after. Most people agree to share resources from during the marriage, not after the marriage. If the bread winner owes alimony, then the house-maker should owe maid service or something, but yet you never see that in the court order.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      It is especially scary when you consider that some people get locked into a career or job they hate to pay alimony which cannot be reduced if they change jobs
    - chrsig 4y ago
      I think you have a flawed mental model of alimony. Try modelling it more like a severance package. Should you keep working for your employer after they've terminated the employment agreement, but agreed to give severance? The universal answer is a resounding 'no'.
      - notch656a 4y ago
        I see marriage as an equal partnership, so if there is a post-marriage 'severance' (beyond 50/50 asset disposition noted above) it would be bilateral (bread winner gives money to home-maker, home-maker gives maid/home-making service to bread winner). Seems cleanest at all just to cut ties though.
        chrsig 4y ago
        It's not a symmetric exchange though. One person has decidedly more capability to start a new life than the other. The 'severance' is intended to help them establish that new life (e.g., acquire training, housing, etc) If they're continuing to perform home making duties, they don't have the time to build that new life. And you're essentially keeping them trapped in the relationship even after a divorce. You're of course welcome to negotiate anything with a potential spouse before marriage and encode it in a prenup.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  This assumes that the husband wants to remain married and that the wife is contributing. Congrats on your loving and supportive marriage, but that is not always the case. I imagine it's a lot more scary for people in the latter group.
- rokhayakebe 4y ago
  As Chris Rock says, the problem is not having to give up half of 15M. The problem is having to give up half of 35,000.
  - lelanthran 4y ago
    > As Chris Rock says, the problem is not having to give up half of 15M. The problem is having to give up half of 35,000. I don't understand - are the stakes much higher when fighting for half of 35K than when fighting for half of 15m? It seems to me that it is, but if you have a link to the video I'd appreciate it.
    - Broken_Hippo 4y ago
      If you have 15m and lose half of it, you are still pretty well off with the 7.5m you retail. Even a quarter of that would get you a house and you probably won't have issues having a stable life, even though both parties have to set up house again. Half of 35000k - 17.5k - might be the difference between living on your own and having to move in with relatives. It is basically the difference between some money when you are nearing poor and money while rich - the poorer you are, the more you are going to depend on the money and the bigger difference losing/having it will have on your life.
- Broken_Hippo 4y ago
  I'd advise the friend of yours to create a relationship their spouse wants to be in This just isn't always possible. Sometimes, folks change and want different things in life. For example: If my spouse suddenly decided he wanted children, that would end the relationship for me. I could not expect them to go without something they are finding critical to their happiness, but I'm not willing to bear children for someone else's feelings either. And honestly, this is what being respectful in a relationship actually is. But all that said, would one of us qualify for alimony or need some help getting on our feet? Yeah. One of us stays home, after all, and would need the assistance (though I'm not convinced it should be alimony, per se - not at our income level).
  - chrsig 4y ago
    sure, people aren't static, and needs and wants change over time. sometimes they diverge. I certainly didn't mean that one should betray their own needs or boundaries to accommodate their spouse. My intent was more to convey that fostering a caring, loving, respectful, and interdependent relationship drastically lowers the probability of a divorce. Life still happens. Of course our existing systems aren't perfect either. I do think there's probably a case for a lower bounds on when alimony is viable. e.g., if the paying party is/would be below the poverty line, but I'm far from well enough informed to speculate what a good system would be.
- helpfulclippy 4y ago
  > I'd advise the friend of yours to create a relationship their spouse wants to be in. That's how you prevent the downsides of alimony. This is simply not true. Your spouse has free will, and can use that free will to make marriage-ending decisions, no matter what you do.
  - chrsig 4y ago
    of course -- read literally, it's not true. I just left a comment[0] that clarifies what my intent to convey was. tldr: it lowers the probability of divorce. one person can't reduce that chance to zero, because as you mentioned, the other person very much has free will. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32204289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32204289
alecco 4y ago
One big problem with alimony is it's often calculated at time of divorce and never updated. Extreme cases are when the provider is at an unusual peak of earnings. Once they are past that peak and can't keep up payments, they are driven into bankruptcy (or even jail!). This is quite common with successful actors and sport stars. On the other end, some divorces happen when the provider is in a low (e.g. depressed with an unusually low salary, or even jobless). So the other partner has to face almost zero alimony support. Even if the provider is later recovered and well off. There are people exploiting both scenarios by timing the divorce when it's most convenient for them. This used to be a trope in magazines.
angmarsbane 4y ago
Alimony varies by state. In California if it’s less than 5 years the higher earner will owe alimony for half the length of the marriage. Other states you have to be married X amount of years before it’s obligated.

nickMMM 4y ago

Yep it calculates alimony payments (called spousal maintenance in NY). It's based on income, length of relationship etc. In NY, you can actually negotiate out of alimony (eg trade it for some more assets).

chrsig 4y ago

It shouldn't be that scary. I've been married coming up on 10 years in January. I've been the sole income provider for a large majority of the marriage. I wouldn't be able to make the income that I do without the contributions my wife has made to making my life easier, and in general keeping the more administrative aspects of life under control. I'm in a marriage with her because I love her and respect her. Part of that is recognizing that it is our income. Part of that is recognizing that even if our marriage were to decay to the point of divorce that I would still care enough about her as a person to want her to be able to establish a new life. I'd advise the friend of yours to create a relationship their spouse wants to be in. That's how you prevent the downsides of alimony.

lazide 4y ago
That is good advice. Unfortunately, it also requires both parties to be working towards that goal - which doesn't always happen. If that doesn't happen, yes alimony can get very, very expensive.
philliphaydon 4y ago
You don’t have to answer but I would like to ask. > I wouldn't be able to make the income that I do without the contributions my wife has made to making my life easier, and in general keeping the more administrative aspects of life under control. If you were to divorce would you find it reasonable for her to get 50%? Because I would seem as tho she gave up (willingly in support of you) a career for you. And after divorce wouldn’t be able to maintain any sort of lifestyle as a result of having no career or work experience?
- notch656a 4y ago
  Seems reasonable to me she would get the 50% from during the marriage, but nothing after. Most people agree to share resources from during the marriage, not after the marriage. If the bread winner owes alimony, then the house-maker should owe maid service or something, but yet you never see that in the court order.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    It is especially scary when you consider that some people get locked into a career or job they hate to pay alimony which cannot be reduced if they change jobs
  - chrsig 4y ago
    I think you have a flawed mental model of alimony. Try modelling it more like a severance package. Should you keep working for your employer after they've terminated the employment agreement, but agreed to give severance? The universal answer is a resounding 'no'.
    - notch656a 4y ago
      I see marriage as an equal partnership, so if there is a post-marriage 'severance' (beyond 50/50 asset disposition noted above) it would be bilateral (bread winner gives money to home-maker, home-maker gives maid/home-making service to bread winner). Seems cleanest at all just to cut ties though.
      - chrsig 4y ago
        It's not a symmetric exchange though. One person has decidedly more capability to start a new life than the other. The 'severance' is intended to help them establish that new life (e.g., acquire training, housing, etc) If they're continuing to perform home making duties, they don't have the time to build that new life. And you're essentially keeping them trapped in the relationship even after a divorce. You're of course welcome to negotiate anything with a potential spouse before marriage and encode it in a prenup.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
This assumes that the husband wants to remain married and that the wife is contributing. Congrats on your loving and supportive marriage, but that is not always the case. I imagine it's a lot more scary for people in the latter group.
rokhayakebe 4y ago
As Chris Rock says, the problem is not having to give up half of 15M. The problem is having to give up half of 35,000.
- lelanthran 4y ago
  > As Chris Rock says, the problem is not having to give up half of 15M. The problem is having to give up half of 35,000. I don't understand - are the stakes much higher when fighting for half of 35K than when fighting for half of 15m? It seems to me that it is, but if you have a link to the video I'd appreciate it.
  - Broken_Hippo 4y ago
    If you have 15m and lose half of it, you are still pretty well off with the 7.5m you retail. Even a quarter of that would get you a house and you probably won't have issues having a stable life, even though both parties have to set up house again. Half of 35000k - 17.5k - might be the difference between living on your own and having to move in with relatives. It is basically the difference between some money when you are nearing poor and money while rich - the poorer you are, the more you are going to depend on the money and the bigger difference losing/having it will have on your life.
Broken_Hippo 4y ago
I'd advise the friend of yours to create a relationship their spouse wants to be in This just isn't always possible. Sometimes, folks change and want different things in life. For example: If my spouse suddenly decided he wanted children, that would end the relationship for me. I could not expect them to go without something they are finding critical to their happiness, but I'm not willing to bear children for someone else's feelings either. And honestly, this is what being respectful in a relationship actually is. But all that said, would one of us qualify for alimony or need some help getting on our feet? Yeah. One of us stays home, after all, and would need the assistance (though I'm not convinced it should be alimony, per se - not at our income level).
- chrsig 4y ago
  sure, people aren't static, and needs and wants change over time. sometimes they diverge. I certainly didn't mean that one should betray their own needs or boundaries to accommodate their spouse. My intent was more to convey that fostering a caring, loving, respectful, and interdependent relationship drastically lowers the probability of a divorce. Life still happens. Of course our existing systems aren't perfect either. I do think there's probably a case for a lower bounds on when alimony is viable. e.g., if the paying party is/would be below the poverty line, but I'm far from well enough informed to speculate what a good system would be.
helpfulclippy 4y ago
> I'd advise the friend of yours to create a relationship their spouse wants to be in. That's how you prevent the downsides of alimony. This is simply not true. Your spouse has free will, and can use that free will to make marriage-ending decisions, no matter what you do.
- chrsig 4y ago
  of course -- read literally, it's not true. I just left a comment[0] that clarifies what my intent to convey was. tldr: it lowers the probability of divorce. one person can't reduce that chance to zero, because as you mentioned, the other person very much has free will. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32204289 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=32204289

alecco 4y ago

One big problem with alimony is it's often calculated at time of divorce and never updated. Extreme cases are when the provider is at an unusual peak of earnings. Once they are past that peak and can't keep up payments, they are driven into bankruptcy (or even jail!). This is quite common with successful actors and sport stars. On the other end, some divorces happen when the provider is in a low (e.g. depressed with an unusually low salary, or even jobless). So the other partner has to face almost zero alimony support. Even if the provider is later recovered and well off. There are people exploiting both scenarios by timing the divorce when it's most convenient for them. This used to be a trope in magazines.

angmarsbane 4y ago

Alimony varies by state. In California if it’s less than 5 years the higher earner will owe alimony for half the length of the marriage. Other states you have to be married X amount of years before it’s obligated.