Page 11 of 11 FirstFirst ...
9
10
11
  1. #201
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    I do, I do find those multi million alimony Hollywood is found of ridiculous. But I'm not going to make a random stab in the dark and pretend that I understand the situation well enough to be able to make any claims as to what is a reasonable limit. But I'm not sure how this relates to the rest of your post.




    What? I don't understand this logic. Even if you can't precisely quantify the sacrifice, that doesn't mean the sacrifice wasn't made. Their careers were put on pause for ten years, playing word games about "10 years ahead in their age" is just semantics. This obviously depends on your specific line of work or area, but I can't imagine a 10 year disruption being anything but incredibly detrimental.
    Do you think permanent alimony is a fair form of compensation in any situation?

  2. #202
    Quote Originally Posted by Grokan View Post
    Would it be fair if child support was withheld when the person caring for the child entered into a relationship with another person, since the second person could now pay to raise the child with them?
    It's still your child though. Not sure why you'd dump the responsibility on someone else. However, obviously that would be a change in circumstances which would terminate alimony (in most cases of stable long term relationships) and would probably mean the cost of raising the child for the custodial parent has decreased, so a case can be made that support payments ought to as well.

    On the other hand, as I said and shown earlier, child support payments are rather low relative to the actual average expenditure on children.

  3. #203
    Titan Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    13,801
    So...he's in jail for not being able to pay an impossible sum imposed on him?

  4. #204
    Fluffy Kitten Dacien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    9,069
    The first thing that strikes me is a glaring grammatical error in the article (not a misspelling, but a complete omission of a necessary word), which I do judge an article's legitimacy by. Not saying this isn't wholly on the up and up, but I'd feel much more comfortable reading this off the Washington Post, for example.

    Anyway, assuming everything in the article is accurate, that is problematic. It makes zero sense to ruin what livelihood a man does have by jailing him. Better to reduce payments to something more realistic.

  5. #205
    Titan Themius's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Location
    New Jersey
    Posts
    13,801
    This is not the first time the man has been jailed for non-payment of alimony. He spent 10 days in custody in 2010 after failing to pay $25,000 in spousal support, and he was ordered to spend two months in jail last year because he could not pay $53,000 in support payments to his former wife.
    So apparently he makes 90k pretax, and failed to pay 53k in one year!? How in the world. It's as though they expect him to give up the majority of his income.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-09 at 10:04 PM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    The first thing that strikes me is a glaring grammatical error in the article (not a misspelling, but a complete omission of a necessary word), which I do judge an article's legitimacy by. Not saying this isn't wholly on the up and up, but I'd feel much more comfortable reading this off the Washington Post, for example.

    Anyway, assuming everything in the article is accurate, that is problematic. It makes zero sense to ruin what livelihood a man does have by jailing him. Better to reduce payments to something more realistic.
    nj.com is a fine site. I go to it right away if anything happens near me. Usually they have the news. I heard a bunch of helicopters one day, went to nj.com and apparently 20 minutes before then there was some giant fire near by.

    I've seen grammatical errors and spelling mistakes on the times, daily news, huffington post, cnn, fox, just about any news site, after all, they are all human.

  6. #206
    Scarab Lord Satan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    Medellín, Colombia
    Posts
    4,702
    Divorce laws are unfair to the ex-husband.
    pro-gun liberal

  7. #207
    Fluffy Kitten Dacien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    9,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    I've seen grammatical errors and spelling mistakes on the times, daily news, huffington post, cnn, fox, just about any news site, after all, they are all human.
    I can't think of any time I've ever seen a complete word omission on a major news website. I've caught spelling mistakes, but complete word omissions are a huge red flag.

    I'll assume the story as presented is factual, but one must be careful reading stuff off the 'Net from unfamiliar websites, as you know.

  8. #208
    Quote Originally Posted by Themius View Post
    So apparently he makes 90k pretax, and failed to pay 53k in one year!? How in the world. It's as though they expect him to give up the majority of his income.
    thats exactly what they expect him to give up. Enough to keep his wife in the lifestyle shes used to combined with child support (again to keep the child in the life its used to). Sadly hes in a state that is yet to update their alomony laws. The law that says he has to pay such a stupid ammount was written back before the 50's when women diddnt leave the house to work, marraige was a sacred institution and being a divorced single mother was an almost guarantee never to remarry. Women had no options if the husband decided the marraige was over (why do you think divorce rates where so low) so the government stepped in to protect women from becomming penniless if their husband decided he wanted out. It was perfect for its time and has probably saved more women then you could imagine from being screwed over. But its almost 2013! women can work, single mothers are a dime a dozen and being divorced has zero impact on remarrying now. Things need to change.

    Also love the technicality they used to jail him. Its not because he couldnt pay her. Its because he diddnt pay the full ammount ordered by the court that they got him for... Now he has no job, massive debts and a nice stay in prison which will prevent him from getting any equally high paid job in the future. The american legal system has destroyed this mans life. His wife and kids too.

  9. #209
    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    I can't think of any time I've ever seen a complete word omission on a major news website. I've caught spelling mistakes, but complete word omissions are a huge red flag.

    I'll assume the story as presented is factual, but one must be careful reading stuff off the 'Net from unfamiliar websites, as you know.
    You may not have noticed it because your brained filled it in. It's very easy to see how an entire word could be omitted. If anything, I would think that spelling mistakes are worse given that spellcheck exists.

    Bergtau's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability that somebody will mention Godwin's Law approaches 1.
    Hitler wasn't all bad, I mean, he DID kill Hitler.
    An accident is something that you did not mean to do at all. A mistake is something that you regret doing.

  10. #210
    Fluffy Kitten Dacien's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Southern California
    Posts
    9,069
    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    You may not have noticed it because your brained filled it in. It's very easy to see how an entire word could be omitted. If anything, I would think that spelling mistakes are worse given that spellcheck exists.
    I dunno, I've been reading news sites for a long time and I only ever see major mistakes like word omissions on lesser-known websites. Never seen it on the HuffPost, for example, or NPR, or Fox News, etc. The major mistakes seem to crop up on the small-time websites in my experience, and that leads me to be skeptical of the veracity of the content.

    Kinda like a scam e-mail, grammar mistakes just raise red flags for me.

    The last thing I want is to get all enthusiastic about a news story on a small-time website that turns out to be less than accurate.

  11. #211
    Expensive

  12. #212
    Mechagnome lupii's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    Nova Scotia, Canada
    Posts
    606
    I love how there are a few notes from the article that are not really being touched upon, or even being questioned.

    First) How disabled is the ex-wife? Is she unable to physically support herself? Is she a vegetable? Unable to walk? Is it a mental disability? How much assistance does she require and is the money being put to use there? Is she being funded by government sources for this care? What is the extent of her 'disability'?

    Second) What is the situation with the 'child support'? How many children does he have with her? What is the status of his custody with said children/child?

    Third) What are truly the details in the actual case that led to, not only the obscene amount of money involved, but also the legal fees? (if both got lawyers and the 100k was split evenly, it would be 50,000 a piece in legal fees he has to pay)

    My personal opinion: The amount he has to pay vastly is unequal to the amount he makes. The amount is truly unrealistic, given living expenses on top.

    The woman is disabled and would need assistance. But we are missing SO Many details in the actual story. I feel for the guy, I agree that the system is still sweked to the women being the beneficiary, but what about the details we are missing?

    Also, dang guys you are trying to tear Semaphore a new one. o.o'

  13. #213
    Regardless of the situation - nobody should have to pay over their income (or even an extremely vast majority) of their income. I'm blind to the laws of alimony and child support; however, I don't think anything should justify having to have somebody go to jail because he got divorce and had to pay more than he possible could have.

  14. #214
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post

    No it isn't. That is blatantly wrong, because it is a number you made up out of thin air.

    In 2011, estimated household expenditure on the child in a middle class, two parent, single child family begins at $15,460 and increases to $17,900 by the time the child turns 17 (http://www.cnpp.usda.gov/Publications/CRC/crc2011.pdf). Even for the lower income group, spending on a child still starts at ~$9k at age 0 and increases to ~$15k by 17.

    In fact the cost of raising a child totals $295,560 when inflation over 18 years is factored in (http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/...85D1O620120614). This works out to be $16,420 on average per year. You are far underestimating the cost of raising children. Now compare that to the median child support payments above.[COLOR="red"]
    Numbers I made up out of thin air? The number I made up is based on the real world. Additional costs to raise a child . Food $1200 a year, I know for a fact I could feed a child in any city in the USA for under $100 a month and that's with a healthy balanced diet. Clothing $500 a year. I know for a fact I could clothe a child in any city in the USA for under $500 a year. Additional cost to utilities $600 a year. Most cities would be cheaper, but some may be slightly more expensive, luckily this budget has a huge leeway. Medical expenses $1200, Most likely would be far less, but you can never tell, obviously medical expenses could exceed $50,000 or be less than $100. This is why I have put the amount at a liberal $1200. Misc costs $1500. An additional $1500 thrown on for whatever the hell. These are the costs of raising a child. $5000 a year EASILY covers.

    Meanwhile you on the other hand have linked 2 articles, which I'm guessing you didn't even read, because I'm sure you can't actually tell me the break down from the articles. Fact is the articles include Transportation expenses and Housing expenses as the largest cost. Pretty sure we already went over the fact that Housing expenses and transportation expenses are expenses the parent already has to pay. There is no additional cost in these departments. Maybe you should engage your brain a little in some logic and commen sense, before you run your yapper. Do you even live in the real world or just in some bubble?

    You disparage so many posters about using sources to back up their claims, yet you rarely use any, and every time you do they don't prove a damn word you say.

    You never responded to my last request for actual proof on your claim. Your best proof was "it's common knowledge" very nice argument. Your sourced article of course provided ZERO actual statistics to back up your claim. So either keep your hypocritical trap shut or practice what you preach.

  15. #215
    Mechagnome Rollo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    Location
    California
    Posts
    531
    It's hard for me to argue in favor of alimony when children aren't involved somewhere in the marriage, but I'll try. When you get married, you are agreeing to something. You may not know what that something is, but unless there is a prenup or even a postnup, that something will invariably change with every situation your connected life may encounter. If one of you doesn't work, it's agreed upon in the eyes of the court. You may not agree with it, and while married asked for help from your spouse, but you got married with some knowledge of that life. If your spouse loses their job after you get married and never finds another one, you both have accepted that new lot in life. If you end up supporting your spouse in marriage, you are hurting their chance of finding a job or career down the line. The longer someone is out of a job, the less chance they have. If that's not something you agree with, then the choice you have is to have a prenup agreement with scenarios and situations outlined.

    To me, it's rare when both parents have full time jobs and have children. I've seen it, but it's just not common around my life. With that said, if its required or agreed upon that one spouse will be the stay at home parent to raise the children, you are ruining their future financial prospects by taking them out of the job market.

    In a basic sense, alimony is a good idea (imo), but in its current form that has the potential to be manipulated, it's not so great.
    wyrd bið ful aræd

  16. #216
    The judge needs to be unseated. He has a horrible reputation for high balling people out of spite. They did not do the research versus this guys income to see if the judgment was viable. Bad math is bad. IMO, when law makers flub, they should have to take an active part in living out the mistake. For example, the judge orders this guy to pay more than he makes, now the judge has caused undue pain and hardship on someone, it should come out of his pocket book to help make up the mistake. The only way for these fools to learn from their mistakes is hard consequence.
    Quite often, the difference between an idiot and a genius is simply a matter of success rate.

  17. #217
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    What? I don't understand this logic. Even if you can't precisely quantify the sacrifice, that doesn't mean the sacrifice wasn't made. Their careers were put on pause for ten years, playing word games about "10 years ahead in their age" is just semantics. This obviously depends on your specific line of work or area, but I can't imagine a 10 year disruption being anything but incredibly detrimental.
    So do you pay them alimony for 10 years? Or just forever, because if you consider them to have been 10 years behind, how can they catch up? Moreover, how do you even measure whether somebody is 10 years behind when progress isn't necessarily related to time spent? How come the person who was working isn't considered to have made any sacrifices? What about career sacrifices that that person made?

    Bergtau's Law: As an online discussion grows longer, the probability that somebody will mention Godwin's Law approaches 1.
    Hitler wasn't all bad, I mean, he DID kill Hitler.
    An accident is something that you did not mean to do at all. A mistake is something that you regret doing.

  18. #218
    Quote Originally Posted by Zurtle View Post
    Numbers I made up out of thin air? The number I made up is based on the real world.
    So you made them up based on the real world. Well, I cited the actual numbers from the real world.

    Meanwhile you on the other hand have linked 2 articles, which I'm guessing you didn't even read, because I'm sure you can't actually tell me the break down from the articles. Fact is the articles include Transportation expenses and Housing expenses as the largest cost. Pretty sure we already went over the fact that Housing expenses and transportation expenses are expenses the parent already has to pay.
    And fact is those are still expenses related to raising children, whether you like it or not. We went over nothing. You're unilaterally and arbitrarily deleted two large items from the cost of raising a child, just to suit your argument that it doesn't cost as much as it actually does.


    You disparage so many posters about using sources to back up their claims, yet you rarely use any, and every time you do they don't prove a damn word you say.
    Except I did in fact provided sources right there in front of you, and they agree exactly with what I say about the cost of raising children. You're the one being selectively blind about the expenses in order to create manufactured outrage over child support payments even though the fact remains that they cover, on average, less than half of the actual costs of raising a child.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-10 at 07:51 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Bergtau View Post
    So do you pay them alimony for 10 years? Or just forever, because if you consider them to have been 10 years behind, how can they catch up?
    I'm not saying I know what the best formula for it is. I'm saying it can't be "I don't know how to calculate this, so I'm going to pretend their sacrifice doesn't worth anything".

    How come the person who was working isn't considered to have made any sacrifices?
    Nobody made that assumption except you.

    What about career sacrifices that that person made?
    What about it? You take the whole situation on both sides into account to result in an equitable outcome.

    ---------- Post added 2012-12-10 at 08:01 AM ----------

    Quote Originally Posted by Dacien View Post
    The first thing that strikes me is a glaring grammatical error in the article (not a misspelling, but a complete omission of a necessary word), which I do judge an article's legitimacy by. Not saying this isn't wholly on the up and up, but I'd feel much more comfortable reading this off the Washington Post, for example.
    Heh, the red flag for me was that the whole article consists of citing what this guy, and one of his (Islamophobic) supporter says, with essentially no attempt at getting the other side of the story or any ostensibly neutral party.
    Last edited by semaphore; 2012-12-10 at 08:03 AM.

  19. #219
    Bloodsail Admiral Goatfish's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2011
    Location
    The Stars
    Posts
    1,009
    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    Because infants don't have medical expenses, clothing needs, equipment needs like cribs or baby monitors, right? No, all they need is food and diapers. Clearly an experienced parent talking here, yeah.

    I linked and sourced authoritative figures. It's your prerogative to disbelieve them, that's fine. But the fact remains that what I am saying is supported by evidence, while your claims are nothing but your own highly biased personal opinions. When you can't refute evidence with anything resembling facts or logic, all you're doing is sticking your fingers in your ears when you hear inconvenient truths.
    Cost of living/raising a child changes depending on your location, but considering I cover food, housing, travel, utilities on under $7k where I live leads me to believe that raising a child who eats less, doesn't drive, doesn't add anything to my rent, and uses less utilities than me would cost not even $5k a year after the new separate expenses. I think enough proof of that being true is the fact that my single mother raised 3 kids here in Nebraska on 16-18k a year income.

    Quote Originally Posted by semaphore View Post
    What? I don't understand this logic. Even if you can't precisely quantify the sacrifice, that doesn't mean the sacrifice wasn't made. Their careers were put on pause for ten years, playing word games about "10 years ahead in their age" is just semantics. This obviously depends on your specific line of work or area, but I can't imagine a 10 year disruption being anything but incredibly detrimental.
    By your logic the state should pay people who were imprisoned for a lengthy amount of time a constant stipend until they get back to where they were beforehand. Being stuck in the same household as a woman is close enough to prison as it is. But honestly... we really should not be putting dollar values on years of life. When we start that, we may as well just have to pay a fine for murder ((Expected age of death - current age)x worth of 1 year of life).

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •