Printable View
If they've never worked then I agree with alimony. An old lady with little to know outside work experience and no other income will soon run through half of the marital assets. Particularily if she's too young to receive old age security benefits.Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
No, that is not what i'm saying at all. and I don't know where the hell you even got that from what I said.Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Then perhaps you want to clarify the point you were trying to make that I was responding to? I obviously thought you were going in another direction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
You said this:and I was contending that you would end up with more from splitting of the assets then you ever would have saved in a retirement fund had you been working. (at least you would here in Canada because our homes are actually increasing in value and not decreasing.Quote:
How will splitting up the assets account for all the time one was unable to contribute to their retirement fund because they weren't working for pay?
That can vary greatly depending on the assets, but I'll use an example that I know. The average cost of a house in my area is $400,000. I think half of that, plus whatever other things they get, is more than enough to start a retirement fund, make some investments and put a down payment on a new house. As I have stated many times in this thread, forgoing your career by choice is a choice. That person should have considered this situation before making that choice. I don't think that choice should be rewarded.Quote:
Originally Posted by vashti [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Now please give me just as thorough and straightforward response as to why someone who squandered the opportunity at a high paying career, should be allowed to retire and not work while the higher earner must continue working to support both parties?
You know when you say stuff like that you lose credibility. You call staying at home and looking after your own child so that they get the best care and nurturing possible as "squandering a career?"Quote:
Now please give me just as thorough and straightforward response as to why someone who squandered the opportunity at a high paying career,
Please, please come back to this argument after you've had a child and your little baby comes back from day care with diaper sores or catches cold after cold from being around little kids before they've had a chance to build up their own immunities. Then perhaps you'll have a different attitude about why people give up a career to look after their own children when they can actually afford to do so.
How old is the average kid when they start going to school everyday? About 5.
How many years does a standard career last? About 30.
I see a potential of about 25 years for one to build a career even if they decide to give their baby the best care possible.
You are a prime example of a good mother, who also takes personal responsibility for herself. I think the way you handled your situation was very fair, and I would have no problem with such an arrangement(paying into wife's retirement). Why is it wrong to ask that same level of responsibility of other people?
BTW, my main quarrel is with the stay at home spouse, not the stay at home parent, in case that still is not clear.
Who the fark would put up with a stay at home "spouse?" .. and .. Who the fark would want to be one? (excluding of course that woman that has raised children for the past 18 to 25 years and has never worked_) Of course there is always the very rich whose wife is the social butterfly that keeps the hubby's clients entertained and makes sure his suits are back from the cleaners on time for his next big bizzzznes deal. The arm candy at social functions and such. In that case. If daddy war-bucks is willing to look after a stay at home "spouse" then he should know that the family law courts are going to rip him a new one upon disolution of that arrangement and he should just be prepared to write the monthly cheques.
Prenup people, prenup. I've already advised my daughter and future son in law to have one prepared (and using separate lawyers to do it.)
The OP's husband, and the OP, respectively, are just one example of many.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Can you point out the post to me where she shares that she has been a childless stay at home "spouse." I can't remember her saying that.Quote:
Originally Posted by BackUpOrGetStng [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
And, if there are "many" childless stay at home spouses then as I said the man knows what he's getting himself into and he should make legal arrangements to protect himself or he should not marry such a woman who doesn't work or if he does marry her (or her him if she's the main bread winner) and doesn't protect his assets then he should STFU and pay the way the law provides that he (or she if applicable) should.
Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiReloaded [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Quote:
Originally Posted by BackUpOrGetStng [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Okay, here you go^. You referred to a live-in maid/nanny/hooker re: children. Nice. Backpedal much? Its okay, you should change your viewpoint but don't BS when its in clear what you posted.Quote:
Originally Posted by BackUpOrGetStng [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
to be honest i didn't really read all the other posts. they were just too many and i'm trying to read on my phone and i'm blind.Quote:
Originally Posted by BackUpOrGetStng [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
anyway, i don't think you're taking into consideration the value of youth for women.
I just looked, and she didn't. I thought someone brought it up earlier, and I guess the fact that she didn't mention children at all led me to assume that. My mistake. Viewpoint doesn't change though.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wakeup [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
I was responding directly to your post about me not finding a woman to stay at home with the kids.Quote:
Originally Posted by IndiReloaded [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Uhhh why is youth more valuable for women than men? Regardless, they should take that into consideration before making that decision. It all comes back to personal responsibliity..like I've been saying from the beginning.Quote:
Originally Posted by misombra [Dear Guest/Member you have to reply to see the link.click here to register]
Because we are only fertile for so long. Men are fertile for much longer. Plus therebis a lot of science to back up the fact that younger women have more job opportunities.
I do agree that alimony is kind of outdated though. I think so is marriage as well. But if youre willing to let the government into your relationship you should be willing to let them impose their stupid, outdated mandates along with them.