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

[Deleted]

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?

Pretty sure we have it in most European countries, I know mine does, it's a different name and works slightly different though.

- - - Updated - - -

That sounds like a terrible system. It doesn’t reward you for what you did in the marriage. And for those, predominantly women, who sacrifice their careers to take care of kids/elderly relatives, it would say that the man gets to keep everything.

And that’s the argument for alimony, that the sacrifices made by one partner are compensated for by the other when necessary. Seems fine to me.

- - - Updated - - -



In Manhattan it costs 3500/month to get a one bedroom apartment of around 400 sq feet. So yeah, a 2 br there is easily more than 4K.

In pretty much any country in the world it's 50/50 split after divorce, however a prenup or a marriage contract can prevent that from happening.

[Utinil]

Hypothetical situation: Two young adults meet, fall in love, and get married. Both are at roughly the same spot in their careers with decent prospects for the future. A few years later they decide, together, that they want to have a family and they want to give their child the best possible chance to succeed. The man continues his career, the woman takes 10 years off, once again something they agreed to together, to have a couple of children and raise them. Towards the end of that 10 year span things start to go wrong in the relationship. They end up getting divorced. She will always be 10 years behind him in work experience thus getting less pay. So why shouldn't she get some of the money he earns (some not half), since she will forever make less because of something they agreed to together?

That said, assets from before marriage should be protected and I strongly disagree with the idea that the woman (in the scenario above, can be the man in other situations) should not be required to do everything in her power to return to work and earn most of her money herself.


When my brother got divorced, his ex tried to demand alimony. The judge immediately asked my brother if he would like to claim alimony since she was earning more money. He said no, the only reason he wanted to deal with her in the future was in raising the kids (split custody). She got irate at the judge insisting that her claim needed to be addressed. In the end the judge ordered her to pay him $1 a month, just to kind of teach her a lesson.

[Dastreus]

Female priveledge. It won't get cut because some women would banshee screech so loud, sylvanas would be jealous.

[Blamblam41]

Its fucking shit left over and wont go away, They get rid of it and feminists will scream. Dividing half the assets up is pretty fucking shit as well, you take from the marriage what you brought. If you were a trophy wife and didnt do shit you shouldnt get shit.

lmao, you bitch about these components of marriage but oh gay people or oh it's scared that doesn't matter.

Never change religious apologists.

[artemishunter1]

Except it's not "their choice" it's both of their choice and it's completely relevant seeing as how not having a job for 5+ years can make your resume look pretty weak and much more difficult to find a job. How exactly is that not relevant or logical? How is that an appeal to emotion?

that is applying to emotion. Most people are not in high profile career. So, resume gap does not hurt, especially if state it in the resume itself. Lastly, women staying in the house is mostly her decision. Not their decision. Not to mention, dividing by half still remains when woman already returned to work for many years.

- - - Updated - - -

We're not talking about the ex pays "your expenses".. We're talking about allimony...

it's a (small) contribution, NOT paying expenses..

alimony is expanse. especially since its lifetime. Why should anyone have to pay alimony if marriage broke up already?

[Tiwack]

Without equal pay and equal opportunity it's a necessary evil that also helps perpetuate the same inequality you're supposed to be fighting smh.

[Mistame]

Hypothetical situation: Two young adults meet, fall in love, and get married. Both are at roughly the same spot in their careers with decent prospects for the future. A few years later they decide, together, that they want to have a family and they want to give their child the best possible chance to succeed. The man continues his career, the woman takes 10 years off, once again something they agreed to together, to have a couple of children and raise them. Towards the end of that 10 year span things start to go wrong in the relationship. They end up getting divorced. She will always be 10 years behind him in work experience thus getting less pay. So why shouldn't she get some of the money he earns (some not half), since she will forever make less because of something they agreed to together?

As I mentioned above, the "put their life on hold" argument is just an appeal to emotion. One could make a similar argument for the working spouse, who sacrificed time at home and with the children, etc, to provide for the family. The reality is that everything, from the decision to get married, to having children, to being a stay-at-home or working parent is a choice. Making such a choice is not and should not be justification for a post-divorce entitlement. If you get divorced, everything should be split. If it's not enough, too bad. Once you're divorced, neither should owe the other anything, child support withstanding.

Keep in mind that alimony was originally implemented to help divorced mothers support themselves due to being expected, if not required, to be homemakers. This hasn't been the case for generations and in a similar fashion, alimony needs to go.

Or it could have strained their marriage even sooner since they didn't agree on how to take care of the kids. But sure, ignore reality.

Neither marriage nor being a parent requires the sacrifice of one's own individuality or goals. If you put your life "on hold" for anything, you've only yourself to blame. That is the reality.

There is no rational reason for alimony to even be a thing when the division of assets during a divorce is so common.

[Mistame]

If you don't want to drop your kid off to a babysitter/daycare everyday, it does require those sacrifices. You can't argue against this without ignoring reality, but like I said, continue to do so I just won't waste my time with you anymore.

Choosing to do one thing or not do another is not a "sacrifice", it's a choice. But I'll accept that you've no rational argument in favor of alimony.

[JDL49]

To add to that part, not only is the former somewhat like the latter, the former is worse. Everyone expects that 15 year old to have those non existing qualifications. The 45 year old? Will get shunned and discriminated against non stop by employers until she manages to find some min wage job.

(Original is reply #110) Bingo ! In 9 out of 10 career paths being out of the work force for extended periods makes you unemployable at anything more than minimum wage if that. Second divorce laws were indeed explicitly designed to make getting a divorce hard. The so called no fault divorce is a Very recent innovation and it will take a while for the original motivations prior to that change to go away.

[Drutt]

A work colleague is paying alimony to his ex-wife and I was blown away how much he has to pay. It's ridiculous.

She works part time because the money she gets from him doesn't require her to work any more than that. It's wrong. She COULD work a full time job, she just chooses not to.

Meanwhile, he just filed for bankruptcy a short while ago because he can't afford to meet his bills.

[Nihilist74]

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?

Doesn't most European countries have better social services than america. If a couple were to divorce in Europe, the person who was dependent on their spouse would be able to get better social services and support?

[Elestia]

Let me ask you this, say a man marries a woman, a foreigner with no higher degrees or work history in that country, expecting her to be a housewife. She spends over 30 years doing so, raising their two kids. When he goes from dead-end job to dead-end job, living paycheck to pay-check, declaring bankruptcy twice, floating checks, the typical scumbag stuff. She sells all the assets her family gave her, namely two parcels of land passed down to her by her parents, to bail him out of his financial ineptitude, and they're forced to use the money HER parents set aside for the two sons' college to bail him out, AND they take the money both sons make and get from school loans because dad messed up again, only to have her husband leave her, at 60 years old, in a country she'd never worked in, after being a housewife for 30-odd years, so he can go live in a camper out in the country and enjoy what pension/SS he gets without having to spend much, are you saying she deserves nothing?

Because that's a real life example. I know these people. Should he be allowed to just walk away and that's that?

She shouldn’t have pawned her inheritance and her children’s future for her husband. Her sacrifices were just as foolish, if not moreso, than her husbands inept fianancial misdealings. All for the sake of what? Love? Her own inabikity to work? Bullshit. Everyone can work. Leave the marriage, leave the country and gi back home. Save what you can, rest and regroup. Dont blow it to hell and expect money from a man unavle of retaining any.

Definition of insanity- to do the same thing repeatedly and expect a different result.

[Felaris Stormrage]

Marriage is a relic of a bygone era when it was used to secure political/economic (same shit, really) power.

If you're a young man, there is zero reason to get married and any woman that tries to force you into it is not worth your time.

Why are you being misogynistic? Plenty of affluent young professional women that could find themselves in the same predicament.

We should have alimony, because it makes people think twice before going awry on their commitments.

- - - Updated - - -

As I mentioned above, the "put their life on hold" argument is just an appeal to emotion. One could make a similar argument for the working spouse, who sacrificed time at home and with the children, etc, to provide for the family. The reality is that everything, from the decision to get married, to having children, to being a stay-at-home or working parent is a choice. Making such a choice is not and should not be justification for a post-divorce entitlement. If you get divorced, everything should be split. If it's not enough, too bad. Once you're divorced, neither should owe the other anything, child support withstanding.

Keep in mind that alimony was originally implemented to help divorced mothers support themselves due to being expected, if not required, to be homemakers. This hasn't been the case for generations and in a similar fashion, alimony needs to go.



Neither marriage nor being a parent requires the sacrifice of one's own individuality or goals. If you put your life "on hold" for anything, you've only yourself to blame. That is the reality.

There is no rational reason for alimony to even be a thing when the division of assets during a divorce is so common.

You're clearly ignorant to the idea of marriage and parenting. We're forced to make sacrifices for the well-being of our children and marriages. More often than not, this means having to put certain things on-hold and this is where alimony plays an important role.

Why should I be shafted if my partner decides to end the marriage after disrupting my career with a baby and making me the sole caregiver after all these years?

Yeah, it's real easy for a single male to immediately dismiss the idea of alimony. Put yourself in our shoes. We shouldn't have to be broke dick poor, because you decided to run-off with Tammy Rotten Crotch from accounting.

[Mistame]

The argument has been made to you several times but you're ignoring reality like there's no reason anyone would ever make those choices for some reasons.

No rational argument has been made at all. Split the assets during divorce and deal with what you get. Period, end of.

Why are you being misogynistic?

Not how that word works.

We should have alimony, because it makes people think twice before going awry on their commitments.

Someone should not have to pay someone to not be with them, regardless of the reason.

You're clearly ignorant to the idea of marriage and parenting. We're forced to make sacrifices for the well-being of our children and marriages. More often than not, this means having to put certain things on-hold and this is where alimony plays an important role.

You're not "forced" to do anything. You chose to get married. You chose to have children. Alimony serves no rational role in anything.

Why should I be shafted if my partner decides to end the marriage after disrupting my career with a baby and making me the sole caregiver after all these years?

Why should your partner be shafted if they discover you or your marriage didn't turn out as expected?

Yeah, it's real easy for a single male to immediately dismiss the idea of alimony.

It's easy for any sane and rational person to dismiss it.

Put yourself in our shoes.

Here's a novel idea: Don't put yourselves in your shoes.

We shouldn't have to be broke dick poor, because you decided to run-off with Tammy Rotten Crotch from accounting.

And you shouldn't be entitled to the money of some guy you're no longer pleasing. Once you're divorced, you should be on your own. Your split of the assets should be good enough because that's all you deserve.

[Stelio Kontos]

Man, I am glad Angry Internet Boys don't get to make law. There is a certain level of satisfaction knowing that despite their insipid bleating the law is the law.

[Felaris Stormrage]

No rational argument has been made at all. Split the assets during divorce and deal with what you get. Period, end of.



Not how that word works.



Someone should not have to pay someone to not be with them, regardless of the reason.



You're not "forced" to do anything. You chose to get married. You chose to have children. Alimony serves no rational role in anything.



Why should your partner be shafted if they discover you or your marriage didn't turn out as expected?



It's easy for any sane and rational person to dismiss it.



Here's a novel idea: Don't put yourselves in your shoes.



And you shouldn't be entitled to the money of some guy you're no longer pleasing. Once you're divorced, you should be on your own. Your split of the assets should be good enough because that's all you deserve.

You're clearly trying to imply women are attempting to steal the success of young men. Bruh you're in denial.

[FuxieDK]

alimony is expanse. especially since its lifetime. Why should anyone have to pay alimony if marriage broke up already?

No..

While it varies, because of difference in income, it's just a fraction of a normal income..

[Mistame]

You're clearly trying to imply women are attempting to steal the success of young men. Bruh you're in denial.

And you can't read, "bruh".

And that's rational? You really think it's rational to completely ignore all context of the situation?

It's rational because that's the limit of the obligation. When you're married, you've an obligation to the family unit. When you divorce, your only obligation is to the children, if there are any. Divorce is, and should be, the severance of all ties, legal and otherwise, to your spouse. That's the entire point.

So ONE of them has to go without furthering their career and being less marketable because of it after the marriage ends because of BOTH of their decisions.

Right back to the appeal to emotion, which is irrational (as are all arguments of emotion). That divorce might be "unfair" to one spouse is not a valid argument for the other to be indebted to them. Even a purely objective perspective that one of them "sacrificed" their career, etc, doesn't justify the other having to make "support" payments to them. That's what the division of assets is supposed to cover.

And making that argument doesn't even justify it from a legal perspective because most of the states that do allow for alimony do so under the premise that the spouse has the "right" to maintain the same standard of living they had while married, which is even more insane. And in many cases, there's not even any children. So again, no. There's no rational reason for alimony to still be a thing. Though I can see the appeal to your every day white knight and gold digger.

[Felaris Stormrage]

And you can't read, "bruh".



It's rational because that's the limit of the obligation. When you're married, you've an obligation to the family unit. When you divorce, your only obligation is to the children, if there are any. Divorce is, and should be, the severance of all ties, legal and otherwise, to your spouse. That's the entire point.



Right back to the appeal to emotion, which is irrational (as are all arguments of emotion). That divorce might be "unfair" to one spouse is not a valid argument for the other to be indebted to them. Even a purely objective perspective that one of them "sacrificed" their career, etc, doesn't justify the other having to make "support" payments to them. That's what the division of assets is supposed to cover.

And making that argument doesn't even justify it from a legal perspective because most of the states that do allow for alimony do so under the premise that the spouse has the "right" to maintain the same standard of living they had while married, which is even more insane. And in many cases, there's not even any children. So again, no. There's no rational reason for alimony to still be a thing. Though I can see the appeal to your every day white knight and gold digger.

Woah, you can't use that word. Only we can. Racist ass.

[JDL49]

For those outside of North America you may be lacking in some basic facts;

1) Generally speaking Marriage & Divorce Laws are not Federal Law in the US. These laws can vary widely from state to state.

2) Most Public Assistance Programs are state run and largely funded. The only way the Federal Government has any influence here is by giving the states money with strings attached.

3) Historically speaking if you move from a state to another state you will have difficulty getting government assistance with the possible exception of Medicaid, until you establish residence. This loss of a safety net severely discourages relocating. This is in addition to the likely loss of any family driven safety net if you move far away.

4) The US is, compared to Europe at least, not densely populated. Countries like Germany, France, Great Britain, etc. are six to eight times more dense. That makes a HUGE fracking difference. Public Transportation is almost always available there, often not here, nor is most of it as good. You have to have a car in much of the country. Basic Goods & Services are within reasonable distances there, not always here. And obviously in these more densely populated countries there will be a lot more employment opportunities for people that is reasonably close when compared to the US.

In case it isn't obvious alimony is only relevant when we are talking about marriages with children and the custodial parent.