What do you think? Time to change Alimony laws.

[Hugo Drax]

http://www.cnbc.com/id/46118283/

A retired physician diagnosed with Alzheimer's disease 14 years ago, Morgan, 72, no longer walks or talks. His wife and full-time caregiver, Linda Morgan, makes sure he's fed and clothed, and that $25,200 in annual alimony is handed over to his ex-wife, a college professor he divorced in 1997.

Sad, he cannot afford care because his ex-wife gets 25.2K a year in alimony.

Do men get Alimony or only women. It does seem like an out dated law from the 1950s that needs to go.

 

[theeedude]

Writing prenup now Putting a time cap, and amount cap for each year based on gross income difference of preceding year. But it would be good if California laws were sane enouh that most men wouldn't need to do this to protect themselves. I understand the need for some transitional suport, but the long term huge alimony thing is insane. And it's enough to encourage men to shack up instead of getting maried.

 

[MotF Bane]

Alimony needs to be abolished. It's a completely antiquated concept.

 

[Texashiker]

and that $25,200 in annual alimony is handed over to his ex-wife, a college professor he divorced in 1997.

He has been paying alimony going on 15 years?

Most states have a 6 or 8 month limit.

 

[fleshconsumed]

He has been paying alimony going on 15 years?

Most states have a 6 or 8 month limit.

Looks like a lot of states have a "lifetime" limit, that is until one of the spouses dies.

As senseamp has said I recognize the need for transitional support while the other spouse adjusts to a single earner income level or looks for a job/retrains. However, anything beyond a couple of years is completely unjustified.

 

[EagleKeeper]

Looks like a lot of states have a "lifetime" limit, that is until one of the spouses dies.

As senseamp has said I recognize the need for transitional support while the other spouse adjusts to a single earner income level or looks for a job/retrains. However, anything beyond a couple of years is completely unjustified.

Much also has to do with the agreement between the two parties.

If one is willing to be shafted or it is felt that the life style needs to be maintained until the other is on their feet or being resupported, then the support continues.

The option always exists to go back to court and justify a change of support order.

 

[airdata]

The whole system is skewed when it comes to alimony and child support. Look at the recent Kobe Bryant settlement... why in gods name should he have to give 3 mansions and 75 million dollars to some lady who got everything she has from being married to him?

She did nothing to accumulate his wealth. Same w\ Tiger Woods... what did his wife possibly do to deserve what.... 400 million?

I think these laws were written long ago when a family might have 10-20k in assets between them.

The example in OP is more outrageous than Tiger Woods or Kobe... Why should the woman be getting that much money per year? Marriage should not be the lottery and when it ends one person wins and one loses.

 

[Jaskalas]

Throw the unemployed spouses on unemployment. Hey, bet you'll see a lot of marriage and divorces then.

 

[Infohawk]

These are state laws, so it's hard to make sweeping judgments. Traditionally, I don't think it outrageous for alimony to last forever. If you're an attractive 25 year old girl who skips getting educated because she married someone who shared her vision of her being a homemaker. She's probably not going to be able to get someone else to agree to that when she's 40.

Of course in reality this is going to happen less and less. Women are already getting more of the education in this country and in some cases are more employed according to the stats I've seen.

 

[theeedude]

These are state laws, so it's hard to make sweeping judgments. Traditionally, I don't think it outrageous for alimony to last forever. If you're an attractive 25 year old girl who skips getting educated because she married someone who shared her vision of her being a homemaker. She's probably not going to be able to get someone else to agree to that when she's 40.

Of course in reality this is going to happen less and less. Women are already getting more of the education in this country and in some cases are more employed according to the stats I've seen.

I don't share the view that the guy somehow victimized the wife and has to be punished for life because he made it possible for her to stay home and raise the kids.
It's not like the guy didn't make sacrifices during the marriage so that she would be able to stay home and be the homemaker for 15 years. He could have gone to business school or gotten a PhD, started a business instead of staying at a stable job, but instead he supported her and the family for all that time. For doing this sacrifice he gets punished with lifetime alimony. If he said, hell no, you go work, we need your extra income for to pay for a BMW and 60" plasma, and hell, I don't want to work two jobs to support you, he'd be rewarded by having to pay less alimony. So alimony creates the incentive is for the guy to be a selfish jerk instead of what's best for the family.
But even if you think the woman should be compensated for agreeing to stay at home and raise kids, there is no reason for this to be mandated by the state and forced on every couple. Before she quits her job, she and her husband can write their own contract that stipulates that because she's forgoing her education to stay home with the kids, he will be required to pay such and such support in case of a divorce. That would be the free market solution.

 

[Infohawk]

Before she quits her job, she and her husband can write their own contract that stipulates that because she's forgoing her education to stay home with the kids, he will be required to pay such and such support in case of a divorce. That would be the free market solution.

I think you're making big assumptions about how alimony actually works. Alimony applies to keep the wife at the same standard of living even after the divorce. If you assume she already has a job, then she would not be able to simply quit it after the divorce and expect her husband to make up that income. If she earned 50% of the household income, she's not going to get alimony. Now if she were a teacher and her husband was a surgeon, yes, she's going to get money. I don't have a problem with that.

Since when are you the one to suggest we need to always go with the free market solution? Traditionally, the economic aspect of marriage was a key component. There are still traditional marriages out there. To the extent one is not in a traditional marriage, one probably shouldn't be too concerned about alimony because the spouses will be making similar incomes. And if you're really not traditional, you don't get married at all or you get a prenup.

And as we move into the future there are going to be a fair amount of stay-at-home dads who will qualify for alimony. I don't have a problem with that.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

I think you're making big assumptions about how alimony actually works. Alimony applies to keep the wife at the same standard of living even after the divorce. If you assume she already has a job, then she would not be able to simply quit it after the divorce and expect her husband to make up that income. If she earned 50% of the household income, she's not going to get alimony. Now if she were a teacher and her husband was a surgeon, yes, she's going to get money. I don't have a problem with that.

I do have a problem with that. I've always thought that there was no logical or moral reason why the wife (or husband) has a right to maintain the same standard of living that they had during the marriage. I understand that often a wife may forgo pursuing her own career to be a homemaker but I think that she is already fairly compensated for that by getting half of the assets. I don't see why she gets a lifetime subsidy as well.

 

[Infohawk]

I do have a problem with that. I've always thought that there was no logical or moral reason why the wife (or husband) has a right to maintain the same standard of living that they had during the marriage. I understand that often a wife may forgo pursuing her own career to be a homemaker but I think that she is already fairly compensated for that by getting half of the assets. I don't see why she gets a lifetime subsidy as well.

It's more of a contractual thing. When you break a contract you're supposed to put the other party in the same position that they would have been in if you had not broken the contract. Marriage is a lifetime contract.

I don't think you can take a 40 year old homemaker and ask him or her to live comfortably off half the assets (which may not even be that significant at 40) for the rest of his or her life. I don't see why you would marry someone, make them think that if they stay home and take care of the kids you will take care of them for the rest of their lives, and THEN think you could just break that promise because you decided you would rather be alone or with anyone else. Most people wouldn't call that moral either.

 

[Ns1]

It's more of a contractual thing. When you break a contract you're supposed to put the other party in the same position that they would have been in if you had not broken the contract. Marriage is a lifetime contract.

Then why don't men receive pussy as alimony?

 

[the DRIZZLE]

It's more of a contractual thing. When you break a contract you're supposed to put the other party in the same position that they would have been in if you had not broken the contract. Marriage is a lifetime contract.

I don't think you can take a 40 year old homemaker and ask him or her to live comfortably off half the assets (which may not even be that significant at 40) for the rest of his or her life. I don't see why you would marry someone, make them think that if they stay home and take care of the kids you will take care of them for the rest of their lives, and THEN think you could just break that promise because you decided you would rather be alone or with anyone else. Most people wouldn't call that moral either.

I agree that a woman who has been a homemaker is entitled to some period of support to build skills and enter the workforce but it's shouldn't be forever. I don't agree with you that her acting as a homemaker included an implicit contract for lifetime support. I think it's silly to interpret marriage to mean that one party (usually the husband) has to financially support the other for life independent of the results of the marriage, especially when you consider that the divorce rate is around 50%.

Additionally, that argument barely has any significance in 2012 when more women graduate college then men. Another problem is that the person paying isn't always the one breaking the contract. The wife can file for divorce and still get alimony. I can't fire a painter halfway through a job but demand that he finishes painting my house anyway without payment.

 

[monovillage]

Then why don't men receive pussy as alimony?

Because they didn't get any while they were married either.

 

[Infohawk]

Then why don't men receive pussy as alimony?

For the same reason men don't have to keep visiting their in-laws after a divorce.

 

[Infohawk]

I agree that a woman who has been a homemaker is entitled to some period of support to build skills and enter the workforce but it's shouldn't be forever. I don't agree with you that her acting as a homemaker included an implicit contract for lifetime support. I think it's silly to interpret marriage to mean that one party (usually the husband) has to financially support the other for life independent of the results of the marriage, especially when you consider that the divorce rate is around 50%.

Additionally, that argument barely has any significance in 2012 when more women graduate college then men. Another problem is that the person paying isn't always the one breaking the contract. The wife can file for divorce and still get alimony. I can't fire a painter halfway through a job but demand that he finishes painting my house anyway without payment.

Nobody gets married foreseeing a divorce. So yes if you enter into a traditional marriage you are agreeing to support someone for life. That is what is at the heart of all part of the "for sickness and in health." If you are smart enough to know half all marriages end in divorce and you marry a woman who wants to be a homemaker and you stay married for decades and then only divorce when she's near retirement age, it's your fault that you have to support her for the rest of her life. You should have married a professional or not gotten married at all.

And remember alimony takes a lot of factors into consideration that you are ignoring. In some states, if a wife cheats she does not get alimony. More importantly, short marriages usually are not going to trigger lifetime payments. So your concern about the young woman or man who could re-enter the work force may very well have to.

Did you read my posts? I explicitly stated that more women are educated than men these days and that these alimony discussions aren't as important anymore. That doesn't mean people who have been in traditional marriages for 30 years today or even newlyweds who value traditional marriages need to be ignored. That is who alimony is for.

 

[the DRIZZLE]

Nobody gets married foreseeing a divorce. So yes if you enter into a traditional marriage you are agreeing to support someone for life. That is what is at the heart of all part of the "for sickness and in health." If you are smart enough to know half all marriages end in divorce and you marry a woman who wants to be a homemaker and you stay married for decades and then only divorce when she's near retirement age, it's your fault that you have to support her for the rest of her life. You should have married a professional or not gotten married at all.

40 years old is not close to retirement. 40 is exactly halfway through the working life of a college graduate who retires at 68. (depressing) My aunt recently rejoined the work force in her 40s after being a homemaker for 15 years when my uncle lost his job.

Did you read my posts? I explicitly stated that more women are educated than men these days and that these alimony discussions aren't as important anymore. That doesn't mean people who have been in traditional marriages for 30 years today or even newlyweds who value traditional marriages need to be ignored. That is who alimony is for.

I did miss that paragraph.

I do understand the legal reasoning behind the alimony system I just disagree with it. It probably made a lot of sense in the past with lower divorce rates and less than equal rights for women and lower rates of education for women. In fact divorce itself was much different back then. I just think that the implicit contract you are talking about doesn't make sense in the modern world. To me it's an example of the have their cake and eat it too attitude of feminists. They want 100% equal rights but they want to maintain their historical perks as well.

 

[Nebor]

It's more of a contractual thing. When you break a contract you're supposed to put the other party in the same position that they would have been in if you had not broken the contract. Marriage is a lifetime contract.

I don't think you can take a 40 year old homemaker and ask him or her to live comfortably off half the assets (which may not even be that significant at 40) for the rest of his or her life. I don't see why you would marry someone, make them think that if they stay home and take care of the kids you will take care of them for the rest of their lives, and THEN think you could just break that promise because you decided you would rather be alone or with anyone else. Most people wouldn't call that moral either.

What if the stay at home or lower income earning spouse is the one that forces the divorce? They get essentially an early retirement, and can go do whatever they want to, while their spouse is now enslaved to those alimony payments and can probably never retire.

 

[lopri]

I think the title is slightly misleading. It looks like state legislatures have already been taking actions to modernize alimony laws, according to the article?

 

[Munky]

Alimony should be abolished. Especially since we now have no fault divorce - if you willingly chose to leave your marriage "just because," you should not be entitled to any alimony.

 

[Dissipate]

Marriage laws are insane. Anyone watch John Cleese's Alimony Tour?

Two of my uncles got divorced. Not only did their ex-wives get half their assets (plus the house), but they got alimony. One of my (ex?) aunts is on lifetime alimony I believe. My uncles ended up living in apartments. Who knows how much they shelled out for divorce lawyers.

Anyone thinking about getting married should think rationally about the potential consequences of doing so. Getting married is bad enough, but once you have kids it is all over if there is a divorce. The ex-wife will get half the assets, the house, the kids, child support and alimony. The ex-husband gets to live paycheck to paycheck in an apartment as he shells out hundreds of dollars an hour for a divorce attorney just to secure visitation.

 

[Infohawk]

I just think that the implicit contract you are talking about doesn't make sense in the modern world. To me it's an example of the have their cake and eat it too attitude of feminists. They want 100% equal rights but they want to maintain their historical perks as well.

I don't think this really has to do with feminism since both genders can get alimony and we're going to see more and more male alimony cases. There are women that want the career and have their husbands stay at home. Alimony will apply to them too.

What do you think marriage means at all? It seems to me that you're saying that you don't really think marriage needs to be something legal at all. That's fine but it's another topic.

Just because fewer women are full-time homemakers doesn't mean full-time homemakers don't need protections. It's like saying we don't need mine safety laws because most people work in offices. Some people still work in mines and need those laws. If you're an office worker, don't stress out about it. Similarly, if your in a modern marriage where both spouses make about the same income, don't stress out about it.

This is a typical news story in that it's just one anecdote where we don't know all the facts. The main thing is the guy has Alzheimer's. It's probably really hard for his family, his lawyer, and the court to sort his finances and all those other factors out.

One place I think reform might be needed because of changing times is women who divorce but then co-habitate with another man and decide not to get married to the new man because they want to punish their ex-husband. In essence they're double-dipping. It would be nice to do something about that although technically it would be very difficult.

 

[Infohawk]

What if the stay at home or lower income earning spouse is the one that forces the divorce? They get essentially an early retirement, and can go do whatever they want to, while their spouse is now enslaved to those alimony payments and can probably never retire.

Where is this early retirement thing coming from? If a woman was working in the marriage she will need to keep working to maintain her previous standard of living. It's only the husband's contributions to her standard of living that will need to continue IF HE MADE WAY MORE THAN HER. Sure, she could stop working and try to live of the alimony payments, but she'd live a poorer lifestyle. Again, if two yuppies who make the same salaries get divorced there is not going to be alimony.

I think the title is slightly misleading. It looks like state legislatures have already been taking actions to modernize alimony laws, according to the article?

Right.