Page 5 of 9 FirstFirst ...
3
4
5
6
7
... LastLast
  1. #81
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    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
    Marriage is a legal arrangement. It's primarily about taxation, about rights to make decisions for your partner, and so forth. Love is nice, but it isn't remotely required for marriage.

    I'm not dismissing that loving someone is a powerful thing, but if you didn't want to get married because you love them so much, you don't have any room for complaining about alimony, which naturally results from that decision to get married.

    If you don't want to deal with splitting shared property and alimony and all that, just . . . don't get married. Simple.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    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?
    They contributed plenty, you're just not valuing their contributions, but that's fine, that's why we have courts, so these decisions are made by third parties who aren't emotionally biased and who can work out the just solution.

    It's not like alimony is automatic. I'm divorced. No alimony. We both worked while we were married (no kids, yet, in retrospect thankfully), neither of us really made more than the other, so it wasn't worth bothering.


  2. #82
    The Lightbringer Nurvus's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Location
    Portugal
    Posts
    3,384
    Imagine a guy eating out in a restaurant and his girl is a professional eater.
    Let's pay half each!
    Why did you create a new thread? Use the search function and post in existing threads!
    Why did you necro a thread?

  3. #83
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    They contributed plenty, you're just not valuing their contributions, but that's fine, that's why we have courts, so these decisions are made by third parties who aren't emotionally biased and who can work out the just solution.
    I never penned you as a comedian Endus.

  4. #84
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    Marriage is a legal arrangement. It's primarily about taxation, about rights to make decisions for your partner, and so forth. Love is nice, but it isn't remotely required for marriage.

    I'm not dismissing that loving someone is a powerful thing, but if you didn't want to get married because you love them so much, you don't have any room for complaining about alimony, which naturally results from that decision to get married.

    If you don't want to deal with splitting shared property and alimony and all that, just . . . don't get married. Simple.
    I understand all that, but then I'm in my 30s now. For a long time that I would have been legally allowed to marry; I would not have been looking at it as a legal, financial decision. You asked "Why would you get married" and I was simply providing an answer, it may be a foolish one given the right perspective but I find it hard to believe I'm just such a romantic that I'm one of the only people who viewed the thing primarily about a "declaration of love" over primarily about taxation and rights to make decisions for your partner.

    And yeah, maybe its these foolish notions that lead to all the trouble down the line, and marriage should be "rebranded" to more accurately reflect what it really is; but I'd imagine that makes it harder to sell useless tat at grossly marked up prices to prospective brides and grooms :P
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Posting here is primarily a way to strengthen your own viewpoint against common counter-arguments.

  5. #85
    Deleted
    Quote Originally Posted by Gilrak View Post
    We also have it here in the Netherlands, Belgium also has it, I think

    huh?
    Yep. In Belgium the duration can't go beyond the length of the marriage however.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Gabriel View Post
    I think it rather translates to child support. Alimony is money for the ex-spouse.
    The word alimony is used for both child support and ex-spouse here.

  6. #86
    I Don't Work Here Endus's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Location
    Ottawa, ON
    Posts
    78,909
    Quote Originally Posted by The Fiend View Post
    I never penned you as a comedian Endus.
    Are you seriously arguing that a divorcing couple aren't being heavily swayed by emotion in the breakup of their marriage?

    Quote Originally Posted by AeneasBK View Post
    I understand all that, but then I'm in my 30s now. For a long time that I would have been legally allowed to marry; I would not have been looking at it as a legal, financial decision. You asked "Why would you get married" and I was simply providing an answer, it may be a foolish one given the right perspective but I find it hard to believe I'm just such a romantic that I'm one of the only people who viewed the thing primarily about a "declaration of love" over primarily about taxation and rights to make decisions for your partner.

    And yeah, maybe its these foolish notions that lead to all the trouble down the line, and marriage should be "rebranded" to more accurately reflect what it really is; but I'd imagine that makes it harder to sell useless tat at grossly marked up prices to prospective brides and grooms :P
    Marriage is primarily and foremost a legal arrangement, uniting the two of you into one legal entity for a lot of purposes, like income taxation and property ownership. It may be an arrangement most people only get into when they love someone, and that's great, but the point is that the love is irrelevant to the marriage. Not understanding the legal consequences of a marriage is not an argument that you shouldn't have to deal with them. That's the only point I'm making; that the emotion you may be expressing when you get married does not overrule the ignorance you might possess as to what marriage means.

    If you just wanted an emotional connection with no legal drawbacks, get engaged but don't get married, or have a non-binding "marriage" ceremony without an accreddited officiant and without signing a marriage license. If you go through the legal measures to get legally married, that means something, and saying "but I was stupid and not thinking about what this really meant" isn't an excuse.

    Like I said, I've been married, I'd get married again, I'm not shitting on marriage, or love. I'm shitting on people who get married without understanding what marriage is.


  7. #87
    Quote Originally Posted by Endus View Post
    I'm shitting on people who get married without understanding what marriage is.
    Yes I don't think we're necessarily talking about the same things, I was answering your (rhetorical?) question. And for the record I completely agree that ignorance of the law is not a defense
    Quote Originally Posted by Shalcker View Post
    Posting here is primarily a way to strengthen your own viewpoint against common counter-arguments.

  8. #88
    Scarab Lord Frontenac's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Location
    Québec, Québec
    Posts
    4,154
    Society has changed a lot since the 1970's and matrimony is bound to change with it. In Québec, the house wife is a species nearing extinction. Most young women have a carreer. Medecine and law faculties in universities are dominated by women. The revenue gap between men and women is steadily melting away. Same-sex marriage change a lot of things too. Why should the patrimony of the couple be split in two when spouse A has contributed 75% to it and when both spouses are working? Why should a widow recieve the pension payment from his dead spouse? It was necessary when a widow had no other revenue than her husband's, but when most women have had a carreer and have their own pension plan?

    One thing should not change though: the spouse who is keeping the children should recieve alimony from his/her ex. You may not be lovers anymore, but you remain a parent all your life. If there are no children, I don't see why alimony should be paid, especialy when both spouses are working.
    "Je vous répondrai par la bouche de mes canons!"

  9. #89
    It's rather simple, marriage is a legal contract, and that is part of the contract in many states. If you don't like it, then don't enter into the contract in the first place. Complaining about alimony is about the same as complaining about the terms and conditions when using Facebook.

  10. #90
    Herald of the Titans arel00's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Italy
    Posts
    2,852
    Here in Italy it depends on the cause of the divorce. If you separate consensually the payments are quite small, however if the richest spouse (whoever it is) is found to be the one causing the divorse, say becuse (s)he was caught cheating, then the other has rights to keep their standard of living, since basically it wasn't their fault for the breakup.
    Quote Originally Posted by Qieth
    I don't do math, blind assumptions work so much better for me.

  11. #91
    Quote Originally Posted by Player Twelve View Post
    If I am to believe what someone said about US welfare system, then t doesn't need improvements, US gives way more money than european countries give people.
    It's not about the money it gives, it's about the exploitation it allows.

  12. #92
    Deleted
    Read the marriage contract before you sign it.

    These days seeing how many divorces there are, there should really be an standard entry level marriage for the first 5 years orso, with limited benefits and easier opt out, before you can fully 100% marry all your assets into a single entity.

    it's also kinda funny how marriage is a contract for life. pretty sure such open ended contracts are illegal in just about every other circumstance.

  13. #93
    Quote Originally Posted by Deathknightish View Post
    I think this is one of those things that we Europeans find odd about the United States. That the richer person in a marriage becomes obligated to support the ex-spouse, should a divorce happen.
    I think it does still exist in some parts of Europe at least, it's generally referred to as "spousal maintenance" or the like in the English speaking world outside the US.

    Quote Originally Posted by Zeta333 View Post
    Its fucking shit left over and wont go away, They get rid of it and feminists will scream.
    Feminists have a range of opinions on alimony like they do on everything else.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tojara View Post
    Look Batman really isn't an accurate source by any means
    Quote Originally Posted by Hooked View Post
    It is a fact, not just something I made up.

  14. #94
    The Unstoppable Force Ghostpanther's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    USA, Ohio
    Posts
    24,112
    Quote Originally Posted by Ninjaturtle View Post
    One of the reasons why getting married is more of a risk then benefit. Guy or girl. I have a male friend who gets it from his ex. Marriage is such a feeble commitment now with people having far more access to finding new people. I wonder if the person receiving it loses it if they reach that level of sustainability.
    In Ohio, they have a common law wife, law. Which basically means if you live with a person long enough ( I think it may be 7 yrs or more ) and the one mainly gets support from the other one, if they separate, the one who was getting the support is entitled to support payments from the other. So not getting married here would not benefit you any from escaping alimony if you stay with the person longer than 7 years. Other states have similar laws too I think.

  15. #95
    Quote Originally Posted by Quaade View Post
    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.
    I don't know, it's the numbers someone on this forum gave to me when I said welfare in the US is nothing like Swedens.

  16. #96
    Quote Originally Posted by Deathknightish View Post
    I think this is one of those things that we Europeans find odd about the United States. That the richer person in a marriage becomes obligated to support the ex-spouse, should a divorce happen.

    As I understand it, it had it's place back in the days when (mainly) women weren't expected to work and be stay-at-home wifes. If a divorce happened alimony was put in place so she didn't starve to death.

    However, that's not really the case anymore in today's world. Both men and women are expected to sustain themselves, whether they are single or married. So why is it still a thing? I even read an, in my opinion ridiculous, argument that alimony is meant to make sure that the poorer part still lives at the same quality of life as he/she did when they were married. That baffles me, quite frankly, as one shouldn't expect to live as good of a life as single without a shared economy. If anything, it's unfair to those singles who have never been married and could reap such benefits.If you're single, you're single and you're on your own imo.

    So what's the deal with alimony?
    Well, generally speaking , I abhor the idea of alimony, but I can understand how it is acceptable under certain circumstances. For example, if a man stayed home and raised kids while the wife went to school, got a degree, and started a career making good money.

    The dad didn't have a chance to develop his career because he stayed home with the kids, that's a huge personal sacrifice.

    I do think it is awarded in stupid circumstances now, I knew guys who worked and paid for their spouse to go to college, and were still required to pay alimony.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Ghostpanther View Post
    In Ohio, they have a common law wife, law. Which basically means if you live with a person long enough ( I think it may be 7 yrs or more ) and the one mainly gets support from the other one, if they separate, the one who was getting the support is entitled to support payments from the other. So not getting married here would not benefit you any from escaping alimony if you stay with the person longer than 7 years. Other states have similar laws too I think.
    It's even worse for the military. Once you're in for 10 years, you have to give the spouse up to 50% of your retirement...forever. I knew guys that purposely got out before 18 years so that they wouldn't have to pay their ex money. Hell ive even seen ex's go after their former spouses disability payments.

  17. #97
    Banned GennGreymane's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Wokeville mah dood
    Posts
    45,475
    Quote Originally Posted by Theinquisition View Post
    Well, generally speaking , I abhor the idea of alimony, but I can understand how it is acceptable under certain circumstances. For example, if a man stayed home and raised kids while the wife went to school, got a degree, and started a career making good money.

    The dad didn't have a chance to develop his career because he stayed home with the kids, that's a huge personal sacrifice.

    I do think it is awarded in stupid circumstances now, I knew guys who worked and paid for their spouse to go to college, and were still required to pay alimony.

    - - - Updated - - -



    It's even worse for the military. Once you're in for 10 years, you have to give the spouse up to 50% of your retirement...forever. I knew guys that purposely got out before 18 years so that they wouldn't have to pay their ex money. Hell ive even seen ex's go after their former spouses disability payments.
    Hmm I read stories like this before, they tended to be fabricated. Funny.

  18. #98
    Old God Mistame's Avatar
    7+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    May 2014
    Location
    Over Yonder
    Posts
    10,111
    No person should be responsible for a former spouse outside of the time frame that they were together. Split everything down the middle and call it done. All this, "but they stayed at home, sacrificed their career", etc, is nothing but an appeal to emotion. They made the choice, they can live with it. You shouldn't have to pay for ass you're not getting, period.

  19. #99
    Because in the US men are treated as second rate citizens.

    - Forced to sign the draft

    - Unprotected from genital mutilation at birth

    - Face harsher sentences

    - Horrible prison conditions for men ( more men raped in prisons than women in the whole country )

    - Child support

  20. #100
    Quote Originally Posted by ranzino View Post
    it is now a legal principe here: you cannot rely on the ex to pay your expenses anymore.
    I kind of doubt that. It makes no sense at all. If one can afford not to work, why should they be legally forced to? If I had 10 million dollars, why would my partner be legally forced to work some boring job? Or the other way around?
    Quote Originally Posted by Jtbrig7390 View Post
    True, I was just bored and tired but you are correct.

    Last edited by Thwart; Today at 05:21 PM. Reason: Infracted for flaming
    Quote Originally Posted by epigramx View Post
    millennials were the kids of the 9/11 survivors.

Posting Permissions

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