Quote:
It's not even that I dislike alimony or child support, I think they are both fine concepts and they need to exist, it's just that it seems like more often than not they're applied incredibly unfairly. A couple could treat each other with fairness and respect and equality for their entire marriage, but if they end up divorcing for any reason, it's incredibly likely that the divorce settlement won't be fair and equitable. The system seems almost designed to ensure that outcome. Break ups can be incredibly emotional events, and when you combine an event like that with a high income man, the kind of support network that women have (and older men typically don't have), with money grubbing attorneys, and with our legal system, the result seems almost preordained. So why even bother?
And bringing it down to my level (since I am not a multi-millionaire or billionaire, and have zero prospect of becoming either), that still seems to be the outcome for men who only make a few hundred thousand per year. So if you're a decent, honest person who is reasonably attractive, with a high earning job (say, an airline pilot), the prospect of a military pension, and all the stability that those things imply, you're kind of in the drivers seat. So why risk losing half your pension (for life), half of your retirement money, probably your house, and a ton of money every month, for well past the time that any reasonable person would say is fair?
People constantly say, well if you're thinking about those things then you probably just don't love the other person enough, or you're not truly in love with them, but that flies in the face of all of the divorces that occur every year, between two people who were SO SURE that they were absolutely soulmates and totally in love and would never leave one another. So it always seems a little disingenuous to me when people bring up those kind of arguments, because it seems to imply that one should ignore all that and just enter into marriage in a sort of wilful ignorance of what is a very likely outcome in the event of a divorce.
Am I missing something? Again, I like the idea of marriage, and I do want to get married (in theory), I just find the possibility of an incredibly disproportionate and unfair divorce settlement to be extremely galling. I'd feel much better about the whole business of marriage if it were more fair. Thoughts?
I post this here because I'm specifically interested in the thoughts and opinions of those who have similar lives to my own.
Alimony is nota fine concept. It is archaic.Originally Posted by jaxsurf
Some of the divorce discussions over the years (here and elsewhere), always get me thinking about marriage, and why high-earning men even get married (to low earners). It just doesn't make sense to me from a risk analysis point of view. I'm generally in support of marriage, and would one day like to get married, because I do think it's good for people, for communities, and for society. But if you're a multi-millionaire or a billionaire, why would you even bother? Having that amount of money would significantly change the equation for me. It's not that I wouldn't ever be able to trust someone that they have the best of intentions and are truly in love going into a marriage, it's that the deck is so incredibly stacked against the high earner in the event of divorce that it would seem to definitely favor not getting married.It's not even that I dislike alimony or child support, I think they are both fine concepts and they need to exist, it's just that it seems like more often than not they're applied incredibly unfairly. A couple could treat each other with fairness and respect and equality for their entire marriage, but if they end up divorcing for any reason, it's incredibly likely that the divorce settlement won't be fair and equitable. The system seems almost designed to ensure that outcome. Break ups can be incredibly emotional events, and when you combine an event like that with a high income man, the kind of support network that women have (and older men typically don't have), with money grubbing attorneys, and with our legal system, the result seems almost preordained. So why even bother?
And bringing it down to my level (since I am not a multi-millionaire or billionaire, and have zero prospect of becoming either), that still seems to be the outcome for men who only make a few hundred thousand per year. So if you're a decent, honest person who is reasonably attractive, with a high earning job (say, an airline pilot), the prospect of a military pension, and all the stability that those things imply, you're kind of in the drivers seat. So why risk losing half your pension (for life), half of your retirement money, probably your house, and a ton of money every month, for well past the time that any reasonable person would say is fair?
People constantly say, well if you're thinking about those things then you probably just don't love the other person enough, or you're not truly in love with them, but that flies in the face of all of the divorces that occur every year, between two people who were SO SURE that they were absolutely soulmates and totally in love and would never leave one another. So it always seems a little disingenuous to me when people bring up those kind of arguments, because it seems to imply that one should ignore all that and just enter into marriage in a sort of wilful ignorance of what is a very likely outcome in the event of a divorce.
Am I missing something? Again, I like the idea of marriage, and I do want to get married (in theory), I just find the possibility of an incredibly disproportionate and unfair divorce settlement to be extremely galling. I'd feel much better about the whole business of marriage if it were more fair. Thoughts?
I post this here because I'm specifically interested in the thoughts and opinions of those who have similar lives to my own.
Ex-wife of 22 years left me and kids for someone she met in inpatient rehab (which is a racket BTW but that’s another story.) She was always employed - majority of our marriage. She had a career as a school teacher, what she went to college for. She did not help me get to where I am today. She chose to be a school teacher so she should be able to live on the income of a school teacher. I always hated hearing that she is “entitled to live to the standard at which she was living while married.”
Why??? What about me? She gets alimony until I retire or she remarries. She can choose to never remarry to keep the alimony. Can live with another man (which she is.) There is no common law marriage in Florida.
I have to pay the ex 39k per year until I am 65. She wanted 55k per year. I was able to mediate that down. She took half of an inheritance that I received from my grandfather because, in the state of FL regardless of who’s name the money is in it is still considered marital property. I have full custody of kids. I do not receive child support. She took more than half my retirement. I had to refinance house to buy her out. I lost half of all cash and other investments.
Family law always talks about equity. Everything should be split but no one ever talks about who put the majority into the equation to create wealth.
Maybe I could have mediated a better deal but I knew that if I went to court I would be entirely destroyed financially and lose everything- even my kids. The Judge who would have presided was a female who was known to support women. I was told numerous times that I “make too much money.”
So much for fairness and equality.
She can now live her life like a college girl, screwing around, and being supported by her “daddy.” Must be nice.
Alimony reform is a must, in FL, and nationwide. That’s not just for men.
I believe in a bridge-the-gap alimony but for no longer than 5 years.
What is happening today to many, and to me, is a violation of my 13th Amendment rights. Indentured servitude - working to pay another when I receive no benefit.
It is wholly evil and it is wrong.