Is it really good enough compensation if her career is permanently derailed due to the career decisions made together jointly that ultimately benefited them as a couple but massively affected her own career prospects? 2 or 3 "sacrifices" by moving where the hubby needs to move to in order to get that CEO or VP gig really has a long term adverse effect on a career, particularly if her career was in a competitive field like business.Sure it was better for the couple so she obviously thought their lives would improve financially by the guy taking the job. The problem with this is that after they decide to not be together anymore that anything she gained while they were married wasn't good enough compensation during the time they were married. I guess women don't look at it that way because they don't have to with how laws benefit them sitting on their ass and waiting until they day it's a good idea to leave since they basically built someone up they feel they are entitled to freeload off of forever.
Some women and men are freeloaders and abuse the system but not all do. In an ideal world a system like alimony would protect spouses from freeloading while also giving something that is a semblance of equitable compensation.
Man I really need to find a nice unmarried Swedish guy so I can move over there... :P Kidding obviously but those benefits would be sweet.
Last edited by Celista; 2012-12-08 at 04:03 PM.
Then again does she really have to? We can debate different scenarios and job offer all day long. The excuses will remain the same and with a similar outcome.
Seems to be an incompetent judge, ordering the man to pay more than he is earning. Or bad / not specific-enough laws. Or both.
First things first: I completly agree with child support up until first job. If you put a child into the world, you have to pay for it. Fair enough. MAYBE Alimony in the first 3 years after birth (thats the time a kid need most care/time). Thats it.
Here in germany, we have a nice thing called "Düsseldorfer Tabelle" (Dusseldorf Chart) , which the judge and all parties have to consider. In fact, its a list, where there are several income stages. Along with each income stage, there is a fixed summ of child support the man has to pay. Not more, not less.
But: There is a minimum amount, which cannot be taken from you (around 1000 euros in 2013, 1300 $) - no matter how many kids /wifes want money from you. Example: you earn 2000 dollars a month (AFTER taxes) - so up to 700 can be seized from you. But at this income stage, its more likely it will be around 350.
Sounds fair enough.
I do agree however: 100000 Dollars a year is nonsense. really.
Last edited by Bleda100; 2012-12-08 at 04:23 PM.
In retrospect I wish I had revered the genders in my example, might have generated some different responses.
The whole purpose of alimony is to provide a social safety net for partners (because I knew a chick whose husband took her for alimony and child support) who become unemployed or unemployable because of doing the whole "stay at home parent" thing. But I think if somebody is perfectly capable of working, even if they go back to flipping burgers then they should not be eligible for alimony.
If there's a child involved, child support should be decided separately.
It shouldn't matter if one partner had an affair.
It shouldn't matter if one partner was abusive.
The amount of alimony decided should be nothing more than that which is required for subsistence.
Because none of that shit, other than physical abuse (but is not a financial offense), should be any business of the law. It should be your legal right, and your inalienable freedom to fuck any other consenting adult. And in the 21st century, man or woman, it's your own stupid ass move if you throw your own career under the bus just to get married.
Even with my friends situation I still believe child support is necessary. I think alimony has created a beast in the system and that has also led to child support not being proper in a lot of cases.
If it's a mutual decision to divorce then alimony shouldn't be considered. The divorce should be planned around both parties being able to live afterwards and splitting up their mutual belongings.
If it's a divorce decided by one person then there should absolutely be no alimony to that person who wanted the divorce. If they want out of the lifestyle they are living then they should not be rewarded for wanting out. The other person who did not want the divorce should receive some alimony. But a reasonable amount. Enough to get back into the work force and not be a burden to society with welfare or food stamps. Marriage is "for better or for worse".
When a child is involved I feel the alimony should be a separate thing. If a parent wants nothing to do with their child then they should be paying 1/2 of the costs it takes to raise that child with child support to the other parent. If both parents split custody and have the child half the time each, no child support should be involved. From there just determine how much one or the other provides based upon how much time they have the child with the determined amount going to the parent who has the child more to assist in the difference.
All my opinions of course.
Xbox Live Gamertag = Phaedon
How is it reasonable at all to expect him to pay more than he makes? And is 100k really necessary? Does she plan on living off only the alimony?
"Death is not kind. It's dark, black as far as you can see, and you're all alone."
Seriously though, yes I think most people value the pro's with our system quite highly. It makes things a lot easier for everyone, esp those who are lower income takers.
"True, forgot that skåne basically is denmark, sorry, I'm norwegian so automaticly anything north of the pancake is rocky."
Well, you asked so make prepared to disgust in one's own sexuality....
Although I don't subscribe everything this guy says, and talks about, I will say this is an interesting conversation and topic. And certainly is on topic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=T6D2UmE7Yd8 at 6minutes in it starts to get really, really exact about this topic.
Into, and the meat of the topic is in http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FhdX0...ture=endscreen
Carries into http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=...ture=endscreen
I know it will be tempting to overlook the topic and contents due to this guy's flamboyant style...but you have to admit he's fairly well spoken on the topic.
Yes yes bash a whole gender over the actions of some.disgust in one's own sexuality....
Generally speaking I don't care to watch youtube videos. If he references any actual case, please let me know.but you have to admit he's fairly well spoken on the topic.
Do women have to pay that if the child is with the man?
No comment on child support but the alimony bit is so retarded. Since a marriage certificate is nothing more than a financial contract, all marriages should require the couple to agree upon a plan for distribution of assets in the event of a divorce.
I do understand how this guy would turn your stomach....but come on, five minutes of watching a video in the interest of a conversation....
I won't press the issue, but I do wish you'd at least give it a chance without your exact, and limiting knee jerk reaction....(for me? pleeeeeeese ((small stupid child eyes...possibly with mini-tears and puppy dog-esk stupidity))).
fyi: he provides his own links usually below his videos to all articles and documents, cases, and paper publications involved in his conversations so you may do a little reading to further the understanding of such topics.
Perfect example of why not to get married, she leaves, you lose, you leave, you lose.