Emotional Affair?

[BackUpOrGetStng]

Because its not just about raising kids, cooking and cleaning. What if the partner who stayed home to do this gave up all those years of career investment to do so? You seriously expect that partner to simply go out and take a minimum wage job to pay the bills when their spouse is making 6-figures and was supported at home to do so? Do you really think an MD, MBA, PhD or JD just gets to walk into a high-income position after being at home for a decade or so?

Who is to say she'd(or he'd) have a high income in the first place? Alimony is based on what the breadwinner makes, not the earning potential of the lower earner. Anyway, very few people with the drive to get the advanced degrees you mention, would decide to be a stay at home spouses for a decade, and even if they do, that's their choice. No one is forcing them to toss their career aside, and even if they do, after a year or two of working again, they'll be able to earn a good wage. Shouldn't that be covered by them getting half of what the breadwinner paid for anyway? It just makes no sense for that lower earner to get half of the assets AND alimony. Why should the breadwinner be forced to live a depreciated lifestyle while maintaining the lifestyle of the lower earner which they wouldn't have had to begin with?

[vashti]

Why should the breadwinner be forced to live a depreciated lifestyle while maintaining the lifestyle of the lower earner which they wouldn't have had to begin with?

You are asking the wrong question. What you *should* be asking is why the non-breadwinner should have to live off welfare or minimum wage after devoting their efforts (with the consent of their spouse) to non-paying work, rendering them incapable of securing a job that would pay a living wage. Or another question might be why should the taxpayers have to support her just because her ex is too selfish to help her out till she is able to support herself?

As I understand it, alimony is based on each person's income, so if the non-income earner is able to walk right out and get a high-paying job, the person paying the alimony can go to court and have payments reduced or (depending on the length of time they were married) eliminated all together.

[IndiReloaded]

Who is to say she'd(or he'd) have a high income in the first place? Alimony is based on what the breadwinner makes, not the earning potential of the lower earner. Anyway, very few people with the drive to get the advanced degrees you mention, would decide to be a stay at home spouses for a decade, and even if they do, that's their choice. No one is forcing them to toss their career aside, and even if they do, after a year or two of working again, they'll be able to earn a good wage. Shouldn't that be covered by them getting half of what the breadwinner paid for anyway? It just makes no sense for that lower earner to get half of the assets AND alimony. Why should the breadwinner be forced to live a depreciated lifestyle while maintaining the lifestyle of the lower earner which they wouldn't have had to begin with?

I''l say it again:

BTW, this^ attitude is one of the reasons guys are now finding it so hard to find a 'traditional' woman to stay home and raise kids.

Lost earning potential of the stay at home partner is certainly taken into account in the divorce for the kind of case I describe. You are the ex-drug dealer, right? I suspect you have no idea about this kind of scenario. I've seen quite a bit of it. In fact, I've seen wives who choose to 'stick it out' and tolerate a horrible situation simply so they can get themselves established enough so they CAN leave their cheating/abusive husband. Nice, eh?

As for the OP, it doesn't sound like they have kids. I'm a bit of a different opinion for cases like hers. Staying home and living off someone elses income and not taking steps to advance oneself (I mean, if there are no kids--what an opportunity!). I think the husband might have a case for not paying alimony. But who knows? These days, some spouses stay home to take care of a parent (husband or wife's). I don't see that as any different from caring for children.

[IndiReloaded]

so if the non-income earner is able to walk right out and get a high-paying job, the person paying the alimony can go to court and have payments reduced or (depending on the length of time they were married) eliminated all together.

I think this is right here in Canada as well.

[misombra]

I was questioned about the 10 months of time i took off work to stay hOme. I imagine if i were out of my field for ten years i would hqve a hard time getting back in.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

How about this, I'll actually answer your question, but then you have to answer mine?

Why the non-breadwinner should have to live off welfare or minimum wage after devoting their efforts (with the consent of their spouse) to non-paying work, rendering them incapable of securing a job that would pay a living wage.

As I already said, getting half of the assets at separation is compensation for devoting their efforts. It's like saying, you both contributed equally, so we're going to split your assets right down the middle. If someone is going to get alimony, I don't think they should be entitled to half of what they did not pay for. The way it is now, the breadwinner has to pay twice; once when their assets are taken, and indefinitely with alimony..completely unfair. Call me crazy, but I'm a fan of personal responsibility, so it makes no sense to me, for someone to be forced to take care of another full grown adult, just because they made a voluntary choice to not work.

[url=http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/SuddenlySingle/WhenExHusbandsGetAlimony.aspx]When ex-husbands get alimony - MSN Money[/url]

[BackUpOrGetStng]

I''l say it again:

BTW, this^ attitude is one of the reasons guys are now finding it so hard to find a 'traditional' woman to stay home and raise kids.

Lost earning potential of the stay at home partner is certainly taken into account in the divorce for the kind of case I describe. You are the ex-drug dealer, right? I suspect you have no idea about this kind of scenario. I've seen quite a bit of it. In fact, I've seen wives who choose to 'stick it out' and tolerate a horrible situation simply so they can get themselves established enough so they CAN leave their cheating/abusive husband. Nice, eh?

I don't know why you felt the need to say that again. I have no interest in a 'traditional' woman who wants to stay at home; sorry, I'm attracted to and admire bold women who stand out and have skills and ambition. What does me being an ex-drug dealer/current-software engineer have to do with anything? I really don't understand how your last sentence fits into any of this? Alimony is not *supposed* to be punitive damages.

[vashti]

Honestly, I'm getting the impression you aren't capable of making a non-biased judgement, but just so you know, it was made into law, so apparently, other people were able to do it.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

Who am I showing bias toward? People that work for their living?

I said I think non-breadwinners should get half, but if alimony has to exist, they should get one or the other, alimony or half..not both.

You have not responded to this idea at all, why not? Can you offer any explanation, as to how is that so unfair?




You're right, I forgot, all laws are just and fair.

[vashti]

Don't be retarded. I never said ALL laws were just and fair. I said that since it was passed into law, other people were apparently able to comprehend another point of view. You don't have to agree with something in order to comprehend another point of view, do you?

And your point HAS been addressed, by both myself AND indi. Maybe she wants to simplify it even further? I think it's a waste of time.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

I comprehend the other point of view, I just can't understand why it exists. I understand that a person shouldn't be put out in the street with nothing. What I don't understand is why half isn't enough? No one has addressed why they deserve both alimony and half, which is my main concern..half should be enough don't you think? You haven't addressed anything I've said directly. Can you just tell me why one person deserves more than the other person, particularly when they didn't foot the bills?

If I get fired from my job, I get a severance package, but they don't continue to give me a paycheck...because I'm not working for them anymore. If being a stay at home spouse, is truly the 'job' that people claim it is, then getting divorced is the same as being fired. I would have to go find another job if I were fired, so they should have to take their severance package(half), and go find someone else who needs to be ****ed and have their house cleaned, since that is their career.

[Wakeup]

If your employer breaches the terms of your contract then you can sue the company for damages and/or wrongful dismisal and request that the lump some be paid out in monthly increments.
Anyway; I don't believe in men having to pay alimony in most cases. I think the alimony would be justified if he had specifically requested that his wife not finish her degree or that she not work once they were married or, if they had children and he wanted her to be a stay at home mom and she therefore lost many years of earning power. Then, depending on the circumstances, I think she would be entitled to alimony. I also think that any man or woman that marries should have a pre-nup drawn up to protect any assets they have prior to the marriage.

[BackUpOrGetStng]

If your employer breaches the terms of your contract then you can sue the company for damages and/or wrongful dismisal and request that the lump some be paid out in monthly increments.
Anyway; I don't believe in men having to pay alimony in most cases. I think the alimony would be justified if he had specifically requested that his wife not finish her degree or that she not work once they were married or, if they had children and he wanted her to be a stay at home mom and she therefore lost many years of earning power. Then, depending on the circumstances, I think she would be entitled to alimony. I also think that any man or woman that marries should have a pre-nup drawn up to protect any assets they have prior to the marriage.

While I do recognize that it mainly pertains to women, my thoughts go for both genders, though this discussion and everything I've read on the subject today makes me think, "women's entitlement" more and more. I still don't think it should be granted for someone who has voluntarily forgone their career; doesn't matter who's behest it was at. Be responsible for you. I have done some reading up today on the subject, and now I do think that people who have been divorced while they're ailing, or for some reason outside of their own choice can't get a job, and some other rare scenarios should get some small alimony payment. Apparently I was wrong about alimony not being punitive, as there actually is punitive alimony for 'bad behavior'; WTF is this, 3rd grade? I still think that half of the assets that the other person paid for, should be good enough, and no one here has given me a direct answer as to why it isn't.

[Wakeup]

While I do recognize that it mainly pertains to women, my thoughts go for both genders, though this discussion and everything I've read on the subject today makes me think, "women's entitlement" more and more. I still don't think it should be granted for someone who has voluntarily forgone their career;

Me either. But, like the employer that lays an employee off they give that employee a lump sum severance pay. I do think that the wronged spouse who has no other means, no experience etc. is at least entitled to that "severance."

I still think that half of the assets that the other person paid for, should be good enough, and no one here has given me a direct answer as to why it isn't.

What do you mean by "half of the assets that the other person paid for?"

Here, the assets are divided that are made together. Assets brought into the marriage are not divided evenly, but are divided on the increase earned during the marriage. As an example: If a Guaranteed Investment Certificate was purchased for $20,000.00 at 4.5% by one spouse prior to marriage then that original amount of $20 grand would not be divided, however all the interest it earned would be communal property and split down the middle. Any amount inheritance is not communal and would not be included in the split either.

BTW: This applies to common law marriages as well (here) and once a couple lives together for more than three years, the same rules apply to live-togethers as it does legally marrieds. Instead of a divorce decree at time of desolution of the union for live-ins they get a Termination Of Co-Habitation Decree after there is property to be divided and once it's all settled.

[elny1]

Don't be retarded. I never said ALL laws were just and fair. I said that since it was passed into law, other people were apparently able to comprehend another point of view. You don't have to agree with something in order to comprehend another point of view, do you?

And your point HAS been addressed, by both myself AND indi. Maybe she wants to simplify it even further? I think it's a waste of time.

Times have changed and millions of facets of laws haven't adjusted. For you to rely on the law's solutions instead of your own good conscience is a lack of intelligence and lack of faith in your own morals.

BackUpOrGetStng is exactly right btw.