[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I forget the comedian, but one said something along the lines of, “if I have to give half of my pay for her to maintain her standard of living, is she going to come over a few times a week so I can get the pussy I’m accustomed to getting?” True statement. Alimony is a joke. Child support is way past what is needed.
Co-worker of mine has been an engineer for almost 15 years now. He got divorced and had to pick up a part-time job delivering pizzas to pay for the child support and alimony. So he works 50 hours a week as an engineer and however many hours delivering pizzas in his early 40’s. Seriously? Fuck that. What is she doing?
I worked for everything I have. A woman has her own education and can find a job. I’ll be damned if I’m going to hand over more funds so she can be lazy or go be a skank and get paid by me for it. If there is infidelity on the man’s part they deserve some punishment for breaking that agreement, but if she breaks it, she should get nothing except a boot to the ass. Kids shouldn’t need support if living with her, funds should be able to be put towards their time with you (when you have custody). If she can’t afford them, then the guy gets the kids. Maybe that would deter so many of these “easy” divorces.[/quote]
This is why you marry the best woman you can find and not just the best-looking woman you can get your dick inside.[/quote]
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I forget the comedian, but one said something along the lines of, “if I have to give half of my pay for her to maintain her standard of living, is she going to come over a few times a week so I can get the pussy I’m accustomed to getting?” True statement. Alimony is a joke. Child support is way past what is needed.
Co-worker of mine has been an engineer for almost 15 years now. He got divorced and had to pick up a part-time job delivering pizzas to pay for the child support and alimony. So he works 50 hours a week as an engineer and however many hours delivering pizzas in his early 40’s. Seriously? Fuck that. What is she doing?
I worked for everything I have. A woman has her own education and can find a job. I’ll be damned if I’m going to hand over more funds so she can be lazy or go be a skank and get paid by me for it. If there is infidelity on the man’s part they deserve some punishment for breaking that agreement, but if she breaks it, she should get nothing except a boot to the ass. Kids shouldn’t need support if living with her, funds should be able to be put towards their time with you (when you have custody). If she can’t afford them, then the guy gets the kids. Maybe that would deter so many of these “easy” divorces.[/quote]
This is why you marry the best woman you can find and not just the best-looking woman you can get your dick inside.[/quote]
Ding ding ding, we have a winner here!![/quote]
Lets say everyone tried to do that?
How would that solve the problem on a societal level?
[quote]Silyak wrote:
The problem with the divorce paradigm is that two conflicting assumptions are made at different times. When assets are being split, they are split evenly. The assumption is made that even if most or all of the income was provided by a single spouse, the other spouse contributed in significant ways. One spouse goes to work while the other takes care of the house and kids, supports the spouse emotionally, spend time pregnant with children, etc. In this situation, the assumption is made to consider all contributions to the marriage, not just financial contributions.
However, while considering the question of alimony, only financial contributions are considered. The working spouse is still required to pay money to support the non-working spouse as he/she was during the marriage. However, the non-working spouse no longer provides any of the contributions that he or she made during the marriage. [/quote]
but the non-working spouse now has been out of the job market for a number of years. Their skills are dated, their network is nonexistent, and their contemporaries have far surpassed them in career achievement. Spousal support (no one really calls it alimony any longer) is meant to reflect that reality.
[/quote]
This is definitely true. I just feel like the non-financial contributions are only considered when it benefits the non-working spouse.
[quote]Silyak wrote:
The problem with the divorce paradigm is that two conflicting assumptions are made at different times. When assets are being split, they are split evenly. The assumption is made that even if most or all of the income was provided by a single spouse, the other spouse contributed in significant ways. One spouse goes to work while the other takes care of the house and kids, supports the spouse emotionally, spend time pregnant with children, etc. In this situation, the assumption is made to consider all contributions to the marriage, not just financial contributions.
However, while considering the question of alimony, only financial contributions are considered. The working spouse is still required to pay money to support the non-working spouse as he/she was during the marriage. However, the non-working spouse no longer provides any of the contributions that he or she made during the marriage. [/quote]
but the non-working spouse now has been out of the job market for a number of years. Their skills are dated, their network is nonexistent, and their contemporaries have far surpassed them in career achievement. Spousal support (no one really calls it alimony any longer) is meant to reflect that reality.
[/quote]
Question: what effect does taking the above into consideration do to the “non-working spouse’s” incentives?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Question: what effect does taking the above into consideration do to the “non-working spouse’s” incentives?
[/quote]
It depends on the individual.
In my case, my ex is using the time and money to go back to school and earn a doctorate. She very well could have sat around for 4 years eating bon-bons.
Imagine this: your employer gives you a 1 year, paid sabbatical. Some of us will use that time and money for personal and professional growth. Others will play video games for 12 months and wonder where all the time went. It depends on the individual.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Question: what effect does taking the above into consideration do to the “non-working spouse’s” incentives?
[/quote]
It depends on the individual.
In my case, my ex is using the time and money to go back to school and earn a doctorate. She very well could have sat around for 4 years eating bon-bons.
Imagine this: your employer gives you a 1 year, paid sabbatical. Some of us will use that time and money for personal and professional growth. Others will play video games for 12 months and wonder where all the time went. It depends on the individual.
[/quote]
So0…you’re divorced, you’re paying for all of your own bills. On top of that you’re paying alimony and CS I assume. On top of that, the money you’re paying your wife isn’t being used to help pay the bills while she finds a job, but is being used to pay all of the bills while she goes back to school for x amount of years.
[quote]Quasi-Tech wrote:
I forget the comedian, but one said something along the lines of, “if I have to give half of my pay for her to maintain her standard of living, is she going to come over a few times a week so I can get the pussy I’m accustomed to getting?” True statement. Alimony is a joke. Child support is way past what is needed.
Co-worker of mine has been an engineer for almost 15 years now. He got divorced and had to pick up a part-time job delivering pizzas to pay for the child support and alimony. So he works 50 hours a week as an engineer and however many hours delivering pizzas in his early 40’s. Seriously? Fuck that. What is she doing?
I worked for everything I have. A woman has her own education and can find a job. I’ll be damned if I’m going to hand over more funds so she can be lazy or go be a skank and get paid by me for it. If there is infidelity on the man’s part they deserve some punishment for breaking that agreement, but if she breaks it, she should get nothing except a boot to the ass. Kids shouldn’t need support if living with her, funds should be able to be put towards their time with you (when you have custody). If she can’t afford them, then the guy gets the kids. Maybe that would deter so many of these “easy” divorces.[/quote]
This is why you marry the best woman you can find and not just the best-looking woman you can get your dick inside.[/quote]
Ding ding ding, we have a winner here!![/quote]
I am betting all of these divorces aren’t just because they chose the trophy wife.
The intent behind SS is to allow the stay-at-home spouse the opportunity to regain relevant job skills. My ex has done this by furthering her education. She could have sat at home and done nothing until the money stopped coming in.
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
It depends on the individual.
[/quote]
The point I was getting at was, with no-fault divorce coupled with the consideration above, the incentive to divorce one’s partner is high while the costs are low.
They’re still extracting resources but not having to provide anything in return. You could literally get divorced for no other reason than “YOLO.” And isn’t that happening to some degree with 2/3rds of women initiating divorce proceedings?
[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
It depends on the individual.
[/quote]
The point I was getting at was, with no-fault divorce coupled with the consideration above, the incentive to divorce one’s partner is high while the costs are low.
They’re still extracting resources but not having to provide anything in return. You could literally get divorced for no other reason than “YOLO.” And isn’t that happening to some degree with 2/3rds of women initiating divorce proceedings?
[/quote]
Yep…which is why getting married makes less sense the more money you make.
It is like a green light for gold diggers. Fake your way into a marriage then cash out.
Creating incentives for the non-working spouse to initiate divorce at a very low cost, or leaving them in the lurch and forcing a portion of them to endure bad/abusive relationships?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
So I ask, what is better at the societal level?
Creating incentives for the non-working spouse to initiate divorce at a very low cost, or leaving them in the lurch and forcing a portion of them to endure bad/abusive relationships?
[/quote]
The latter option…because it will end up leading to less overall marriages.
Right now, it is a free for all and the man just pays the bill.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
They’re still extracting resources but not having to provide anything in return. You could literally get divorced for no other reason than “YOLO.” And isn’t that happening to some degree with 2/3rds of women initiating divorce proceedings?
[/quote]
One more point, because you seem to be hung up on the timing of the payments: The divorce settlement and spousal support levels are two legs of the same stool. For various reasons, had my ex wanted more cash upfront, her support level would’ve gone down. Had she wanted less money up front, her support would have been more and/or lasted longer.
Again, we here horror stories but many, many divorces are taken care of without one of the partners getting bent over.