Should Alimony Still Exist?

[Deleted]

Alimony is a legal obligation on a person to provide financial support to their spouse after marital separation or divorce. It is almost always the male spouse that is required by law to pay their wife indefinitely. However, there have been a number of gender quality movements in many Western countries that have attempted to abolish the practice, or at the very least ensure that a husband is also entitled to alimony from his wife.

So why exactly should a husband pay his ex-wife for the rest of his life? If they split their current assets down the middle, then shouldn't any future income that the man makes be his own money? Some men are required to pay child support AND alimony which is even more worrying. Finally, there are men paying more in alimony than they actually earn. The stiff and unbending laws actually force them to borrow money just to be able to survive and pay alimony.

There are exceptions to this. For example when one of the spouses has severe health problems from the period of marriage that stops them from being able to work. But outside of serious health issues, gender equality groups find little reason for a man to pay his ex-wife monthly until the day he dies. A full bodies adult should be able to support themself. The more hard work you put in and success you achieve, the more likely you are to be forced to pay alimony. Alimony in principle appears to be an unfair law that punishes hard work and rewards leeches/parasites.

-Should alimony still exist?

[Rukentuts]

No, it should not exist.

In addition, assets should not be split "down the middle". Assets should be split proportionally to who actually paid for them.

[Reeve]

It's a holdover from the time when men were pretty much always the primary breadwinners while the women stayed at home and took care of the kids. When the divorce happened, the man would still have his career, but the woman would have no marketable work skills, and so couldn't support herself well.

Flash forward to today, where a lot of marriages have two working people with full on careers, and it doesn't much make sense. I do think, however, that when a husband and a wife make a joint decision to concentrate on the career of one of the partners while the other stays at home, the one with the career should bear some financial responsibility for the non-working spouse for an indefinite length of time.

---------- Post added 2012-12-28 at 02:58 PM ----------

No, it should not exist.

In addition, assets should not be split "down the middle". Assets should be split proportionally to who actually paid for them.

In a dual-income marriage sure, but in a single income marriage, that's horridly inequitable to the person who was not working during the marriage.

[Rukentuts]

the one with the career should bear some financial responsibility for the non-working spouse for an indefinite length of time.

Hell no. It should be a very limited amount of time, at most. People need to fucking support themselves.

[Timmeh7]

I think it should exist, but essentially as a parachute. Should one spouse work while the other stays home to look after the kids or whatever, a reasonable contribution should be made to allow the carer time to find work. I definitely do not think that this should be an indefinite process, however; a few years (2-3?) seems an acceptable period to my mind. As for a split in divorce proceedings, I think both partners should firstly leave with what they came in with, then find an agreeable split between earnings and acquisitions for the period that they were married.

[N-7]

In a dual-income marriage sure, but in a single income marriage, that's horridly inequitable to the person who was not working during the marriage.

As long as it goes both way working male & non-working female and non-working male & working female. Then sure I see no problem with that and same also should apply to child support and other expenses.

[Gemini Soul]

I think it's stupid that it is still around, worst case it should only be given and last for 1 year and the working spouse would pay the other one who has no income. Giving them time to find employment to support them selves.

[Rukentuts]

In a dual-income marriage sure, but in a single income marriage, that's horridly inequitable to the person who was not working during the marriage.

They made the choice. It shouldn't be "fair" simply because one party chose not to work. At the very most, alimony should be something to help the lesser-off party get back onto their feet and never last more than a couple years.

[Deleted]

No it should not. At least not as more than a provisional solution for a short period of time.

[juzalol]

Well if you get alimony you should be working 40 hour / week for the one paying it.

That should motivate you to hunt for a real job so you can support yourself in which case
you no longer need the alimony.

Brilliant.

[Ethes]

In my country alimony is there to support your children and not for anything else as far as I'm aware. In which case I think it is more than reasonable that it exists. Just because the child lives with one parent it doesn't mean that the other parent isn't equally responsible for its childs welbeing, specially considering the fact that children are really expensive.

In my case, my mother supported my father with money for my school and other necessities and not the other way around. But I agree when people say it shouldn't be in a way that one of the two devorced people has to pay millions to his/her former partner. They should just go and find themselves a bloody job!

Edit: also, I'd like to add that it is infact not for the rest of his/her life but just until the children become 18 years old.

Some more edit, looked into this a little bit more. Aperently there are 2 different types of alimony. One for children and one for the partner. As for the one for the children I think it is good that its there. Children are there parents responsibility, living together or not. Whereas the ex-partner has his/her own responsibilities and shouldn't get payed just because he/she was married to somebody. In my opinion that doesn't entitle you to anything!

[semaphore]

Yes, it should. It probably needs to be reformed, and perhaps limited, but the basic option need to exist.

The problem is people don't realise that alimony comes in many different forms. What about when a spouse works to put another through college? That's a significant expense. If that spouse graduates and then gets the divorce, does the person who paid for the tuition not deserve to get the money back? Afterall that was paid with the expectation that the studying spouse would be able to make an income that can then contribute back to the partnership. This is called a reimbursement alimony.

The one that people always complain about with "for the rest of his life" generally only happens in one case: Let's say a father gives up his career to stay home and raise 5 children because his wife has more income, then 20 years later his wife decides to leave him for another man. What's he going to do? He's been out of the job market for 20 years. His career is non-existent. Why should the sacrifice of one spouse in the context of a partnership, be put on his shoulders alone? In this situation alimony exists to help support that spouse, who doesn't have a pension, doesn't have a means of supporting himself properly, and generally has limited options for work,

It is almost always the male spouse that is required by law to pay their wife indefinitely.

Not true. It's almost always not indefinitely. The majority is paid by the male spouse, but that is not required by law - it's a consequence of 1) women being more often the stay at home parent and 2) men tending to earn more.

[Reeve]

Hell no. It should be a very limited amount of time, at most. People need to fucking support themselves.

If I put my whole career and education on hold because we agreed as a family that it was beneficial to have me at home taking care of the kids, then I am so far behind the curve when we get divorced 10 years later it's not even funny. It's much harder to go back to school when you're in your late 30s or 40s and get yourself a good job/career than it is if you do it at the right time in your life. The working spouse bears some responsibility for that state of affairs because she/he made a deal with his/her spouse that he/she would support them in exchange for them dropping their career aspirations.

[semaphore]

As long as it goes both way working male & non-working female and non-working male & working female.

It does goes both ways.

...but men never complains about women paying alimony, they just pretend it doesn't happen.

[Rukentuts]

The one that people always complain about with "for the rest of his life" generally only happens in one case: Let's say a father gives up his career to stay home and raise 5 children because his wife has more income, then 20 years later his wife decides to leave him for another man. What's he going to do? He's been out of the job market for 20 years. His career is non-existent. Why should the sacrifice of one spouse in the context of a partnership, be put on his shoulders alone? In this situation alimony exists to help support that spouse, who doesn't have a pension, doesn't have a means of supporting himself properly, and generally has limited options for work

Consequences of the choices he made. In an equal society, he should face the consequences and take responsibility.

[Deleted]

In my flawless opinion, the one who instigates the divorce should by law be obligated to economically help their spouse to gtfo the property and restart their life, this should be a one time fee. Exceptions for violence related divorces should of course be in place.

[Rukentuts]

If I put my whole career and education on hold because we agreed as a family that it was beneficial to have me at home taking care of the kids, then I am so far behind the curve when we get divorced 10 years later it's not even funny. It's much harder to go back to school when you're in your late 30s or 40s and get yourself a good job/career than it is if you do it at the right time in your life. The working spouse bears some responsibility for that state of affairs because she/he made a deal with his/her spouse that he/she would support them in exchange for them dropping their career aspirations.

It's called consequences. It's like responsibility is taboo in our country...

[Reeve]

They made the choice. It shouldn't be "fair" simply because one party chose not to work. At the very most, alimony should be something to help the lesser-off party get back onto their feet and never last more than a couple years.

"One person" didn't choose not to work. The married couple decided together that they would be better off if one of the two in the marriage did the housework/child-rearing while the other supported them. It's not a question of laziness here. It's wrong to think that when the working party breaks their end of the contract while the non-working party has fulfilled their end that the working party shouldn't still be fulfilling his part of the bargain, at least in part.

[Shockzilla]

If the relationship required for someone to stay at home and take care of domestic situations of care for someone then yes it should be.

[Reeve]

It's called consequences. It's like responsibility is taboo in our country...

Consequences go two ways. If you decide to be in a single income marriage, you recognize that you now have responsibility for providing for the non-working person.