Should alimony be abolished?

[esotericstory]

Wealth in equality is not that bad. I dont see the problem. Its stupid to try and create something when you dont have the means to do it. So many resources wasted for a false paradise.

Updates

+1 y

There are already so many welfare programs at least in my country. There is alimony, child support, and every child gets 250 Euros a month from the state as well, even when the kids go to college.

Updates

+1 y

In my opinion, the person who asks for divorce should get nothing not even the kids. Marriages and divorces are not a sport for vampire lawyers.

[NaultD]

Too much Wealth inequality the whole table gets flipped over. The first will be last and the last will be first. A world leader getting a knife up the anus.

In Amarica, alimony was used to keep the table steady when other tables are flipping. It's a compromise to keep the status quo. I agree with alimonys
Sprite of a spouse being trapped in a life situation without there own means and having a way to combat that.

I don't like the capitalist neoliberal bastardized version of alimony. Get the stuck spouse without financial means a lawyer that gets a decent cut to devour the other spouse alive. This is a product of wealth inequality at its finest.

[BeMuse]

Alimony should have never existed. There should be no such thing as child support. Kids aren’t property to grant to one parent or the other. Joint custody and responsibility should be the standard. Kids should spend half of their time with each parent after a divorce and during the time the parent houses their child they should be responsible for their expenses. If one parent is jailed, sent to war, or dies then the remaining parent has to carry the load during that period.

[Anonymous]

I don't know if it should be abolished, but I think it's a silly thing. A divorce should mean separation of everything, including financially. Unless the money was made equally and agreed upon to split it as earned, it would make sense. I feel like it's just a really stupid legal obligation.

If the man produced most of the income and it was not a joint account, there should be no reason to give basically free money to your ex-spouse. There are definitely certain circumstances where I'd be willing to look past, like was he the one who insisted on being the provider? Either way, as a whole - it's stupid.

[lucas262]

It means he or she maintain a the same level of life style after the fact. child support is bad enough this is pure thievery.

[MzAsh]

If one spouse commands the other to sacrifice their career to be a stay at home parent and then they divorce, I think the spouse with an income should be required to at least help the other one get back in their own feet, for a limited period of time. Say, 6 months or so. This why I’d rather have my own income regardless of my other life choices.

[esotericstory]

Nobody 'commands' this and you know it. No need for silly wordplays to justify your wacky gender ideologies.

[SexyPetite]

@esotericstory how much did your ex get from you in your divorce

[MzAsh]

I met a couple guys if my past who said they wanted stay at home wives. That’s when I decided to move on.

[esotericstory]

Being a stay at home person is a luxury, many business can be opened from the home with or without internet. The era of 9 to 5 jobs is totally over, its from the 20th century. In the 21th century the legal system should adjust itself accordingly by abolishing alimony.

[MzAsh]

I’m totally into the online entrepreneurship scene but I’ve asked and many people still believe that to be a career in itself. That’s still time you won’t be able to cook, clean, or look after the kids even though you are home.

[esotericstory]

You can meal prep every Sunday for the whole of the week. Cleaning is an issue. Women all over the world have found things to look after their kids 24/7. If westerners can't do it they shouldn't get kids.

[MzAsh]

That all depends on if they want to do it that way or not.

[esotericstory]

I'm pragmatic in that. If it works it works.

[Fiiggy]

@MzAsh I'm totally with you but i feel we can extend it a bit more. Look i kinda get the logic of alimony but this life time stuff is BS. How about you get alimony long enough for you to get retrained in something...2-3 years? How has being a stay at home mom ruined you from ever returning to work for the rest of your life? In CA 10+ years of marriage might mean eternal alimony, how is that fair?

[MzAsh]

I wouldn’t agree with eternal alimony, but as you said, until that person gets back into work.

[SpacedCharr]

I assume you mean "wealth inequality".

In which case, dear lord, please travel more. You are horribly sheltered. And if you can't afford travel, oops. Wealth inequality isn't bad, right? 🤷

[Lightning8]

You're sort of proving his point. Men are also just as broke as women. Someone even posted here recently that women are now the majority of the entire workforce, despite being considered and treated as a marginalized minority. Women have overtaken men as the majority of the US workforce. Thoughts? ↗

And if a man did make just enough money to allow himself to travel, then at the 50% liklihood that his marraige will fail, and the 70% likelihood that it'll be his wife to file, he eventually won't be able to travel anymore once alimony hits.

Wealth inequality between billionares and the middle, working, and lower classes, is not the same case as the idea that a man of those latter classes somehow unfairly earns more than a woman of the same class. And that latter idea is part of why alimony was invented.

[esotericstory]

"Wealth inequality isn't bad, right?" You want to have wealth equality, but at the same time DO NOT provide a viable proven way to get that equality. The problem is that you try to get to a destination, without a path telling you how to get there.

[SpacedCharr]

@Lightning8 Not debating that everyone is poorer these days. That's a well-established fact.

Where did I imply that men aren't as poor as women are?

I agree that alimony with no reason (e. g. the man had no kids with his divorced wife) makes no sense.

@esotericstory
Wealth equality isn't my goal. Neither really is eliminating wealth INequality, but for the sake of discussion let's say it's the latter.

There are already proven methods to reduce inequality. You just need to look outside the US.

UBI is one, already tested in several countries to unexpected success. Finland for example, also one of the happiest countries in the world.

Fixing the US' strange taxation laws for corporations and increasing taxes for the ultra-rich is another. Not to redistribute wealth, necessarily, but to provide the government the means to provide better services for free to more people.

Are you very familiar with economics? There's a lot of excellent pathways already paid out by world-renowed and even Nobel Prize winning economists.

You and I, and even the average person, has no need to "provide a viable proven way". They already exist.

The US is just, for some inexplicable reason (not inexplicable, you guys live in an educational and media bubble and most of you have no idea and will deny it), blind to it.

[esotericstory]

I can't fucking believe it. Finland is the country with the highest suicide rates in the whole world. It has rampant alcoholism as well.
www.nytimes.com/.../...l-basic-income-finland.html
This article explains how UBI in Finland was a complete disaster. The only issue is, that it TOTALLY twists the words by saying that instead UBI failed in Finland, Finland failed UBI.

Utopia cannot be achieved, and it will never be achieved. Wealth inequality CANNOT be achieved, because wealth as we know it is fiat currency, meaning that there is no intrinsic value to it.

[Lightning8]

@SpacedCharr The implication from your comment was very unspecified and rather blanketed or general that you seem to be in support of alimony.

[Liam_Hayden]

It should be limited, but not completely abolished. For example, a woman who gave up college and a career to raise kids for 20 years should not be left high and dry by her M. D. husband who divorces her.

[bamesjond0069]

But thats what child support is for.

[Anonymous]

Absolutely. its indentured servitude or slavery. It basically incentivizes women to not get off of their asses and work. If women truly are equal to men than it is unnecessary. Alas feminism will never choose to get rid of it because it steals from men and gives to women...

[Apple1996]

No definitely not. There are many cases that are completely unfair like if a women stays home to raise the kids while the husband is able to work. If they spilt the women gets stuck with kids and no job. That really isn't fair and with things like child support it totally makes sense when you see the amount of fathers that walk away from their children. I think women especially have all the right to make the man pay her.

[esotericstory]

No I disagree. Hopefully the laws change soon with populism thats on the rise globally. And also cheating must be punished by the law by taking away the ability to make future marriages.

[Apple1996]

I met a women just yesterday that is getting divorced because her husband was abusing her and she was pregnant and two other small kids. Do you think she deserves to give up everything to her husband because she wants a divorce? I think not. I told her to make sure she gets the money she deserves from that fucker

[esotericstory]

Courts are not concerned with "deserving". Its not a matter of retribution. If she was abused she must seek mental and legal help and not ABUSE divorce laws for retribution.

[esotericstory]

Money does not make the pain away, it will simply continue the cycle of abuse. This the reason why many modern men say women are rotten and disgusting, because of the cycle of abuse. Stop using divorce as a form of retribution. Its not healthy and it amounts to nothing.

[Apple1996]

This women wouldn't be getting a divorce If this guy wasn't abusing her. she's not trying to play the system. she's litterally trying to make sure her children are safe. People dont get divorced just because they are hoping from partner to partner gathering money

[esotericstory]

Lol what the fuck? First you say you told her she should get as much money from her partner as possible and now suddenly you are counter signalling your own statements?

[Apple1996]

I'm saying she needs to get divorced and to make sure to get his money because leaving her high and dry with 3 kids that are his would be a pretty fucked up situation

[Apple1996]

I think if you had kids and a wife you would not be sitting here saying that youd leave them with nothing while you just sat in all the money that is techinally there's. Any guy that would fuck over his childern and the mother of his children must be a really fucked up person

[esotericstory]

Again with the retribution, a divorce is a cancellation of marriage, nobody is "getting fucked over"'. If a wife is in no position to make money then she should simply not even consider divorcing.

Besides, what you say is garbage because all the internet resources that help women divorce from their husbands explain to make as much money BEFORE divorcing. They say explicitly that the they should get training and qualification to get a good job and even help these women get jobs.

What you say has no currency whatsoever.

[Apple1996]

I'm married with kids and my husband already knows his place if we get divorced so yeah this won't ever be a issue for me thankfully.

[esotericstory]

I'm not yet married, but if I do and have kids I'm make sure that my wife knows her place too if there is a divorce.

[Kurαȷ]

Alimony should have never existed in the first place, and now that there really isn't any legitimate reason for it other than female vindictiveness and greed, it should definitely be abolished.

[waaromniet]

It needed to exist tho, back when women couldn't go out there and earn it themselves. But as with everything, the legal system is too slow to adapt :p

[Kurαȷ]

@waaromniet
Alimony as a continued spousal support never really existed in the past, that's a relatively modern phenomenon made regular by the rise of gynocentrism in marriage laws over the course of the 20th century.
Initially, it served as a deterrent of marital misconduct and divorce as a whole, because men of the past couldn't realistically afford to actually pay alimony.

So it not only failed to "adapt", it became way, way worse and a lot more enforceable with personal wealth on the rise.

[rjroy3]

I think it should exist, but be severely adjusted. There are definite cases that alimony is justified. I do think they should be short term 1-3 year assistance plans

[andreasderjuengere]

A monetary compensation in lieu of doing a parent's job is sort of cheap.
I'd prefer to see a system that secures proper emotional care for a child than just the financial 'deal' about it.

[elite665]

Yes it screwed my dad short term but since he has large income he got over it

[elite665]

I also think a women getting half of everything is bs like sticks and certain stuff should be left alone

[Bandit74]

I am ok with it if the time frame was limited to 1.5 years and if it was based on what is neccessary to survive rather than a % of the guy's income.

[Dkc123]

Strong legal prenup could work or best is no marriage.

[Meatunnel69]

Yes what entitles a woman or man to a paycheck from their exes if no kids are involved. Ridiculous

[Anonymous]

Yes, absolutely. However, the entire family court system and divorce law needs a complete overhaul as well.

[cavmanier]

I don't agree with it either. Blame the British.

[Pejtu]

Yes it should be banned

[codycccccccccc]

Yes but it would save me a lot of money

[Gedaria]

It makes people think twice on divorce..

[jimmy2]

Forgiveness is easier