Women should get alimony for LIFE!

I asked you to travel the world with me. You failed to answer in a timely fashion :smt018

 

Shit I'll go to Ottawa for you and you know how I feel about farm country lol

 

Lol, Ottawa for a bit but I am thinking Panama or Hong Kong next

 

Hong Kong definitely.

Ni we shua poon toong Kuama?

 

My Chinese stinks! I have a feeling it is something dirty......just saying

 

It just means do you speak Mandarin lol

 

ahahahahaha Oooops

 

Well I do have a woman(not married though) and I do have a good amount of money (not Tiger Woods bank but still respectable for someone under 30)

I'm just sticking up for the men getting fucked over in alimony payments...thats all.

 

I looooooove women. Love my gf but again I'm just sticking up for men getting the raw end of the deal. I call Bullshit when I see it.

I came across this ridiculous article and wanted to share it...and now suddenly I hate women lol smdh.

 

I agree in MOST cases. However, room in the law must be kept for extenuating circumstances. I have a dear friend who was married for 20 years, at her husband's request, did not have a career to raise children. She became partially disabled asnd can't work full time, and does not have the skills to advance herself due to the nature of her disability. He is paying her alimony for 10 years. I feel she deserves it.

 

Truthfully I'm sorry for your friend. Her situation sounds like it sucks and I would never want to have to depend on anyone but that staying home shit is a choice plain and simple and she made it.

If we are married and at your request I took a good job manufacturing job that paid 20 dollars an hour with good chance of advancement to manager. Would it be fair for me to later come blame you that I let you talk me into taking the hire paying job instead of going to college and training for a field that I felt had better job security?
Definitely isn't. One could argue she got the better deal being able to raise her kids and spend that precious time the father never got to spend with them. Time she was afforded because he worked and she didn't.

 

The only problem with that theory is that 1. This is a decision she did not make alone and 2. It left her without marketable skills.

She needs to be able to get some training for the job market - entering at 50 or 60 isn't the same thing as entering at 18. In her case because she's disabled, it would be nice if she could get SSDI, but because she has not worked outside the home, she's not eligible. You have to have worked a certain number of quarters in the recent past in order to qualify, so even if she had worked before marriage, she would still be ineligible for SSDI.

 

I can understand why you feel like that, and I'll refrain from commenting on their situation as that agreement is between them. I'll just say that raising your own children doesn't entitle you to spousal support IMO. Having the ability to raise them yourself is its own reward, and when you become a parent, you should expect to make sacrifices for their benefit. To me that's just part of being a parent. Child support I have no issue with if the custodial parent needs it, but as far as I'm concerned that's the only time children should factor into support decisions.

 

I would agree in MOST cases, however he wanted her to stay home and it made his life easier as he did NO PARENTING. I chose to sty home with my kdai for 8 years and to forego the retirement income I would have made. That coupled with the fact that MOST of my income went to the household while my ex saved 1/2 of his towards retirement prompted the judge to award me 1/2 his retirement. Every case is different and it depends on the length and circumstances of the marriage. I agree that all things equal, people should be big girls and boys and suck it up. IF and that is a BIG IF I EVER get married again, I will have a prenup for sure.

I honestly feel that threads like this are desgned merely to inflame people.

 

What TreePixie said.

 

The problem with your scenario is that you were working and you have a skill set. It may not be the job or the skill set you would have liked, but you will still have a job at the end of the marriage, no worries.

I'm not in support of lifetime alimony. That's completely insane. But when you're married and you make a mutual decision to have one of the parents stay home with the kids and they don't work for 25 years, then if they need alimony for, say, 2 years so they can learn a skill set and get a job, then I think that's more than reasonable.

Being married, the couple makes decisions that are best for the family at that time. Just because the marriage doesn't work out, shouldn't mean that one of the parents becomes destitute because they didn't acquire a skill set to work outside of the home because they were too busy acquiring a skill set INSIDE the home.

And don't get me started on women asking for alimony from their super rich husbands because they're "used to a certain lifestyle". To me, that's complete and utter bullshit. You shouldn't need money so you can sustain a rich lifestyle if you weren't rich to begin with. I think alimony should be for a set time period and only for a parent that stays home with the kids for several years.

I think that's a reasonable compromise.

 

1. In my scenario they both made the decision together as well. Did you read it fully? She suggested and the man complied. Mutual decision.

2. Have you seen whats going with people who were formally in manufacturing? They no longer have marketable skills either. Those jobs are being shipped overseas so what exactly are they qualified to do? Now in my scenario if the wife made the decision to do nursing and has more stable job security is she responsible for her ex spouse and for how long? And to be more parallel with my scenario lets say that he exhausted all unemployment benefits before deciding to get divorced. How long is the spouse who can stand on their own two expected to carry the other?

 

love it...so nice of you to break it down short, sweet and to the point:smt061no need to mince words on this one

 

The first part I don't agree with but I agree with the second part.
Certain skill sets in this current economy are completely worthless. A guy who worked as an assembly line worker at Chrysler has absolutely no skill set that is employable. They'd be in a worst position than their female counter part because as of late I noticed that women are more employed than men since most of the manufacturing jobs aren't here anymore and women also have a sympathy card I never see extended. An unemployed woman deserves help and unemployed man is a bum and isn't trying hard enough

But I do agree alimony should have a much shorter life span but my problem with that is in this incredibly uncertain employment climate one needs to save as much as possible and all I can think about as a man if you have to pay alimony you can't save and since I notice that men are losing jobs quicker than women its more likely they'll be unemployed quicker and for longer. I honestly think splitting everything down the middle and going your seperate ways is the best option. And no more staying at home with the kids. Send them to daycare and call it a day or just don't have them but that whole he made me stay home excuse is such a cop out. You have a brain and you can make choices just like I can't blame you for my career choices you can't do the same.

 

And he had a skill set. Perhaps not what he'd have chosen, but he was employable. A SAHP is not.

There is a difference between changing careers, and not having *any* skills. You can transfer a lot of skills from industry to industry, making modifications to your skill set along the way. Totally different from not having marketable skills AT ALL.

Yes, if the wife was working as a nurse and the husband had stayed home and had no marketable skills she should pay alimony - the amount of time would depend on the length of the marriage. If they'd been married 6 months, he's probably on his own. If they'd been married 25 years, then probably several years.

It isn't "carrying" the other spouse. What you are overlooking is the amount of work that goes into making a home and raising a family. If one person has taken all that on so the other can concentrate on a career, they work might not have "marketable" value in terms of job skills, but it's hardly of no value to the family at all. Paying alimony so someone can *eat* and have a roof over their head until they are trained for something - after 25 years of marriage is that *really* so awful a thing?