Wy is Alimony still a thing in the U.S?

[DSRilk]

But for life? She never has to work again because she married you 20 years ago or something? Thats bullshit.

As a general rule, alimony is not for life. It decreases over time until it goes away. How quickly depends on how long you were together and what drove the income disparity. If she worked crap jobs to put you through school for ten years, then you ditched her for a young co-ed after you become a professor, you'll be paying for a while. If you earned more coming in to the marriage and both continued working for two years of a failed marriage, alimony will be non existent or very short lived.

I'm nearly 50. I've seen plenty of marriages dissolve in my time. I have never seen any real injustice in terms of alimony. What I've seen is several men who were pissed that they couldn't just keep 100% of what they built together as a couple and a woman (the big earner of their family) who got screwed over because she didn't bother to do what her lawyer told her. Obviously anecdotal here, but I think this conversation is driven far more by fearful young men with ego issues rather than any sort of reality outside the odd corner case.

[AeneasBK]

Honestly, it's such a miniscule amount of money to give someone a better life.

It's basically a question of each and everyone paying an extra 9-10 dollars a year in taxes to help a lot of people, compared to one person throwing up hundreds, maybe even thousands of dollars, a month.

I happily give the equivalent of a monthly netflix subscription and a pizza to make sure that those that are in the worst position in society can get help getting back on track. A society's worth is viewed on how it treats it's weakest.

Are you being serious here? I've not really got a problem paying extra taxes to help people who are genuinely poor. But paying extra taxes so guys can fuck about and not have to foot the bill? Get the fuck outta here with that nonsense. Or did I misunderstand the context here?

[DSRilk]

Oh you seem to have it confused. I will not hide the funds. I will tell my spouse "I keep all my assets in my account, and if you want I will set up the same for you."

Want to know why? Because a Prenup is fucking useless in UK law, it can be over-ridden by a Judge.

It can be overridden if it's viewed to be unfair, but it is almost always upheld. Also, what you just mentioned isn't creating a "dummy account," which is what you first said. There's nothing wrong with saying "I'm keeping this account in my name." I mean, sure, it doesn't bode well for your marriage that you feel that's necessary, but there's nothing wrong with it. That alone would likely mean you get to keep it, even in the UK. Get a prenup and its even more likely. I was critiquing your asset hiding/dummy account "plan", not the concept of keeping separate bank accounts.

[Deleted]

Are you being serious here? I've not really got a problem paying extra taxes to help people who are genuinely poor. But paying extra taxes so guys can fuck about and not have to foot the bill? Get the fuck outta here with that nonsense. Or did I misunderstand the context here?

I mean under his same context, why the fuck should anyone work a Minimum wage job then? I'd happily stop working to get a free ride.

- - - Updated - - -

It can be overridden if it's viewed to be unfair, but it is almost always upheld. Also, what you just mentioned isn't creating a "dummy account," which is what you first said. There's nothing wrong with saying "I'm keeping this account in my name." I mean, sure, it doesn't bode well for your marriage that you feel that's necessary, but there's nothing wrong with it. That alone would likely mean you get to keep it, even in the UK. Get a prenup and its even more likely. I was critiquing your asset hiding/dummy account "plan", not the concept of keeping separate bank accounts.

Perhaps I worded it a little wrong. I am a firm believer in Fiscal Individuality. I probably would never legally get married unless my partner wants the tax benefits.

[AeneasBK]

I mean under his same context, why the fuck should anyone work a Minimum wage job then? I'd happily stop working to get a free ride.

Well in the UK that's a very good question. I'm being remunerated approximately £1.15 per hour I work a week compared to not working at all. Absolutely not a "financially" sound decision; just being unemployed is depressing. But I wouldn't expect someone who just wants money and time to ever work a minimum wage job they simply don't pay enough.

[Deleted]

Well in the UK that's a very good question. I'm being remunerated approximately £1.15 per hour I work a week compared to not working at all. Absolutely not a "financially" sound decision; just being unemployed is depressing. But I wouldn't expect someone who just wants money and time to ever work a minimum wage job they simply don't pay enough.

It becomes a point where if the Minimum wage job is really fucking shit, with no upsides, overly long unfair hours for Minimum wage and no prospects of a raise or job security, I'd just give it up.

Right now I work a Minimum wage job, purely because it's easy, I like the staff I work with and the hours are pretty fair. Plus it's a literal 10 min walk from my house, so I could easily calculate the costs compared to jobs around me and fine it's pretty equal.

[Lane]

I don't know, I asked why people have to work 2 jobs etc if they get that much in welfare and the response was that it's so stigmatized to receive welfare that people don't apply for it or something?

I'm not familiar with welfare, but if it's anything like disability it's not that easy. The system sets you up to fail. When you file for disability your first application, appeal, and frequently subsequent judge's hearing are all automatically denied regardless of your circumstances because the government really does not want to offer you assistance. Disability attorneys are not covered by legal aid so when you hire one, and you will have to hire one, their fee is 25% of whatever you're awarded. Getting to the hearing stage at all takes a minimum of 2 years after your first filing. Should you have to appeal the judgment plus schedule a new hearing (which incidentally there is no guarantee you'll be assigned to a different judge than the one who denied you in the first place) you'll easily be 5+ years past the time you ceased to be able to work. Should you finally manage to qualify for disability it's usually not a sustainable living amount and it only lasts for 2 years at which time you have to prove you're still disabled.

SNAP you have to reapply for every 3 months. I'm not familiar with Medicaid, but with Medicare there's a monthly payment and you're still responsible for 20% of your own health care costs, which can still make seeking treatment prohibitive. I have a friend who works with the disadvantaged to help them qualify for Section 8 and it sounds like there are as many hoops to go through as disability. I'll have to ask her, but I'm highly skeptical they receive "anywhere from $1000-$4000/month".

Whenever I see people talk about how easy it is to get government assistance in the US I know they're talking out of their ass. Most people would get handouts if they could, it has nothing to do with "stigma", it's that it's such a pain in the ass and the end result often isn't worth the trouble of obtaining it.

[Najnaj]

Alimony is a thing all over the world as it should be. Being a spouse is being an equal partner, not an administrative assistant.

[ranzino]

And that's why when I get married I am signing off all of my assets to a dummy account. My stuff is mine, her stuff is hers.

no need for dummy accounts, that is the legal stance here: your property pre-marriage is not up for discussion later.

it gets a bit ugly if your property happens to be the house you + wife lived.: she is not entitled to a single brick of the walls and you can toss her out upon divorce.
at the same time her inheritance from her parent's death (received while marriage lasted, otherwise it would be clear) is also not up for discussion; it's hers for all eternity and you are not entitled to a single cent of that capital itself.
only wealth (and debts on behalf of couple) accumulated during marriage is up for division.

[AeneasBK]

Right now I work a Minimum wage job, purely because it's easy, I like the staff I work with and the hours are pretty fair. Plus it's a literal 10 min walk from my house, so I could easily calculate the costs compared to jobs around me and fine it's pretty equal.

Genuinely sounds pretty similar to my situation, its an easy job I can leave in the workplace, I'm popular because with very little effort I can do the job better than most people expect (esp. regarding the customer service side of it).

But if I was working or living "for the money" I'd absoultely be back on houseing, JSA and council tax benefits, between the three of them you have to work over 30 horus a week JUST to receive the same money, so full time you're only getting 10 horus a week "more" money, and you work the other 30 "for free".

Note that this is all of the mentality that the money is the most important factor. Obviously theres an element of "debt to society" and wanting to be financially independant etc. and I'm not trying to PROMOTE not working. Just that under the current system there isn't a big incentive TO work, unless they raise the minimum wage to make it pay better than not working. And I dont' think it will be economically sensible to reduce benefits, the pound of flesh will simply come elsewhere.

Was gonna edit for typos but damn there are so many.

[Deleted]

Alimony is a thing all over the world as it should be. Being a spouse is being an equal partner, not an administrative assistant.

You can only say that when both partners earn the same, Otherwise, why should a divorce be profitable?

[Rafoel]

Alimony is a thing all over the world as it should be.

Not really, not in my country, no.

[Deleted]

Genuinely sounds pretty similar to my situation, its an easy job I can leave in the workplace, I'm popular because with very little effort I can do the job better than most people expect (esp. regarding the customer service side of it).

But if I was working or living "for the money" I'd absoultely be back on houseing, JSA and council tax benefits, between the three of them you have to work over 30 horus a week JUST to receive the same money, so full time you're only getting 10 horus a week "more" money, and you work the other 30 "for free".

Note that this is all of the mentality that the money is the most important factor. Obviously theres an element of "debt to society" and wanting to be financially independant etc. and I'm not trying to PROMOTE not working. Just that under the current system there isn't a big incentive TO work, unless they raise the minimum wage to make it pay better than not working. And I dont' think it will be economically sensible to reduce benefits, the pound of flesh will simply come elsewhere.

It doesn't help that Benefits can stack.

So you have a single mother with say, two children, getting Child benefits. Then they get their housing benefit and maybe a counsil flat. Then getting Jobseekers. Then maybe if they're fat that even apply for Disabilties.

So this is a woman who doesn't work, still has her kids taken care of, and is rewarded for their lifestyle of laziness. I think I agree with my dad on benefits. Instead of giving you free money and then making you run around Bureaucracy, they should simply make you work community service for 30 hours and pay you Minimum wage for that.

Heaven's knows we need more litter pickers or landscapers for parks.

[Quaade]

Someone on the forum posted this:
Section 8 housing vouchers (depending on location and size of home/family): Anywhere from $1000-$4000/month.
SNAP (food stamps): ~$150/month per person
Medicaid (health insurance): The cheapest legal health insurance plans are like $200-$300/month if you are young, medicaid is better than those in that there is very little out of pocket cost.
Welfare (just plain money): ~$600/month.

That's a shitload more money than you get from the welfare system in Sweden.

And yet those people still live in poverty whereas a person Sweden can live on their welfare.

Are those numbers pre or post tax? Since combined it's than the average person makes on a salery.

Also 4000$ dollars in housing? Are you insane? The median rent in nongentrified areas are less than 1K$ for an average home of threr.

One look at the exchange rates tells me that the numbers you got are doctored or pure bullshit.

[JohnBrown1917]

We also have it here in the Netherlands, Belgium also has it, I think

huh?

[Endus]

If you didn't want to combine your wealth into a single unit, why did you get married? Complaining about the negative aspects of ending a marriage after enjoying the benefits is ludicrous.

[AeneasBK]

It doesn't help that Benefits can stack.

So you have a single mother with say, two children, getting Child benefits. Then they get their housing benefit and maybe a counsil flat. Then getting Jobseekers. Then maybe if they're fat that even apply for Disabilties.

So this is a woman who doesn't work, still has her kids taken care of, and is rewarded for their lifestyle of laziness. I think I agree with my dad on benefits. Instead of giving you free money and then making you run around Bureaucracy, they should simply make you work community service for 30 hours and pay you Minimum wage for that.

Heaven's knows we need more litter pickers or landscapers for parks.

No issue with "community" service, as the current system simply has you go work for private companies (and I wonder how they get on the list for free staff?) and I don't see why the taxpayer is subsidising their wages budget.

- - - Updated - - -

If you didn't want to combine your wealth into a single unit, why did you get married?

Because you're in love? May sound juvenile but marriage isn't really framed as a "tax and financial decision" until you're a bit older; or you'd disagree? I'm vaguely aware that my sheltered upbringing has left a romanticised impression on me :P

[Deleted]

If you didn't want to combine your wealth into a single unit, why did you get married? Complaining about the negative aspects of ending a marriage after enjoying the benefits is ludicrous.

Because I don't like stealing from people and I don't like people stealing from me.

If a person contributes little to nothing to my Marriage I hated, Why should they get anything out of it but what they put in?

[Low Hanging Fruit]

As a general rule, alimony is not for life. It decreases over time until it goes away. How quickly depends on how long you were together and what drove the income disparity. If she worked crap jobs to put you through school for ten years, then you ditched her for a young co-ed after you become a professor, you'll be paying for a while. If you earned more coming in to the marriage and both continued working for two years of a failed marriage, alimony will be non existent or very short lived.

I'm nearly 50. I've seen plenty of marriages dissolve in my time. I have never seen any real injustice in terms of alimony. What I've seen is several men who were pissed that they couldn't just keep 100% of what they built together as a couple and a woman (the big earner of their family) who got screwed over because she didn't bother to do what her lawyer told her. Obviously anecdotal here, but I think this conversation is driven far more by fearful young men with ego issues rather than any sort of reality outside the odd corner case.

Well I got 10 years less than you and have seen ladies that just sat around at the house smoking weed get 20 years world of pay out of a guy that put her though school and she just did nothing with it.

[Deleted]

No issue with "community" service, as the current system simply has you go work for private companies (and I wonder how they get on the list for free staff?) and I don't see why the taxpayer is subsidising their wages budget.

I'd much rather see Civic duties and potential learnable skills provided in return for benefits than just being used as Quasi cheap labour.