Florida Gov. DeSantis signs bill ending permanent alimony. Do you consider this to be a good or bad thing?

[SolitarySolace]

Florida Gov. DeSantis signs bill ending permanent alimony - www.cbsnews.com/.../ - "He (DeSantis) has just impoverished all the older women of Florida, and I know at least 3,000 women across the state of Florida are switching to Democrat and we will campaign against him, all the way, forever," Camille Fiveash, a Milton Republican who receives permanent alimony, said in a phone interview Friday.

They left equality in the dust, now they want revenge and power - https://youtu.be/blmj03k-Bw8

This is a good thing

This is a bad thing

[blueonblack22]

DeSantis has taken some very risky moves lately on state legislation (including abortion). Overall I really like what he’s doing. But it seems like he is more concerned about being popular in Florida vs how he does in the general election.

He’s got balls. I respect him for that. I plan to vote for him in the primaries. However suburban women are notoriously fickle swing voters. They (secretly) supported Trump in 2016 but completely reversed in 2020. So is a move like this going to make DeSantis more popular with suburban women?

Anyway I think DeSantis is a far superior candidate to Trump for a whole host of reasons. But part of me can’t help wonder if he really wants to be president. The campaign takes nerves of steel especially if you are running against Trump in the primaries. Is DeSantis really up for that?

I actually hope to God he turns it around (he’s way down in the primary polls against Trump). Although I hate Biden with a passion I also don’t look forward to the whole circus of Trump being back along with all the insane liberal TDS all over again.

[WindAtMyBack]

At a glance it seems like a good law. Some groups who are against it seem to be throwing around massive amounts of misinformation and making all kinds of unwarranted claims.

I haven't read much detail, but it appears to allow review of updated status at some future point in time. I don't see how that's an issue. It also limits alimony in very short term marriages, like three years or less. The idea of permanent alimony is absurd. As near as I can tell, this new law puts it more in line with the way it should have been all along.

Permanent alimony was rare in the first place. Where's it's legal, it's only awarded in certain circumstances, such as very long term marriages when the spouse is beyond their reasonable working age.

If a quick check is right, there were only seven sates that allowed permanent alimony. Now there are six. So Florida has come in line with 43 other states.

[Alli39]

Not a fan. While not every court case regarding alimony probably has the most fair outcome (because when does every court case on a subject ever have a fair outcome), I understand the concept behind alimony in terms of making sure that divorce doesn't create poverty for people who never knew they'd need to work outside the home and lived their lives on that assumption and agreement with their spouse.

[MrOracle]

Women initiate nearly 80% of divorces (and that figure is 90% for women with a college degree), so you certainly cannot say that these women are divorcing without knowing that they'll have to work. Permanent alimony INCENTIVISES divorce. This is not the 1950s, when few women worked outside the home - most women today have their own careers, and there is no justifiable reason for them to get alimony for the rest of their lives, especially when they are initiating the divorces.

[Alli39]

@MrOracle Most people don't actually want to get divorced, you do know that right? And housewives do still exist. Now I don't know that they're not assigning permanent alimony to women with their own careers, but for women that spent 10 years plus doing working solely in the household then frankly I'm not mad that they should receive long-term support, maybe not lifetime, but certainly for a while because starting a career or education 10 years after the rest of the population has a whole extra set of challenges. But honestly I don't feel that strongly about this, nor am I exceptionally educated on the topic, so I 'm going to stop here.

[LazerBean]

I think it depends on their abortion laws. If a woman can opt out of parenthood, then I agree men should be able to as well. But if women are made to be responsible (and I believe they should be) then so should men.

[gorydetails]

You’re confusing alimony with child support.

[LazerBean]

Oops, you right. In that case idc either way

[gorydetails]

Child support should continue until the child is 18.

[LazerBean]

Indeed

[gorydetails]

Bitches get 6 months, lol.

[RavVid]

I don't understand the US divorce system because I am not an American. Life time alimony would make sense in an environment where marriage is till death do us part and a man wanted to put his wife aside without fault on her side.

It doesn't make sense when marriage has a median duration of 8 years, usually initiated by the wife, and assets are split on divorce. Alimony seems distinctly old school then. From the link it seems that alimony can only be varied when the ex partner retires and that seems reasonable. If the marriage had endured than the wife would experienced less income when her husband retired.

Can somebody fill me in as I am curious. Can a wife initiate divorce and get 50+% of joint assets, plus child support payments plus substantial alimony payments?

[Alli39]

The idea is that, at least traditionally speaking, the woman often put her career on hold or didn't have one at all in order to raise the children on the grounds that the husband support the family. When the divorce happens, she's often let without an income or the skills that she might have had to build a career had she been in the workforce. It's basically severance pay for housewives to make sure that divorce didn't result in poverty. (Because like, if you're in an abusive household but you're financially dependent on your spouse, it becomes even harder to leave since you won't even have means of supporting yourself after you manage to get out, let alone your children.)

Women tend to get custody, and therefore child support because they're generally more involved in the actual care of the child and are therefore (theoretically) more prepared and able to give the child full care despite the loss of the household. (This is becoming increasingly complex and inaccurate as men become more involved in childcare and we reject the assumption that women are inherently intended to be the caregiver of the family.)

Joint assets is just because that's how marriage works unless you agree otherwise in advance, which you can do so, ya know, that's a little bit on you.

[Avicenna]

Sometimes they can

[RavVid]

@Alli39 Yeah I see the severance pay concept for house wives in the traditional model and especially when a husband was trading up to a younger model. It was a death do us part contract that was being broken and divorce was fault based.

Those 50's or 60's days are long past and alimony struck me as anachronastic in an era of 8 year median length marriages.

I'm not wanting to open an alimony debate but I am curious as to how things work in the US. In my country (Australia) it is a Federal power to legislate on marriage (divorce) but I gather that is a state power in the US. So potentially that is 50 different divorce laws.

Can every divorced man in the US paying alimony now head to Florida and apply for reduced alimony? Can a person planning for divorce shop around for the most advantageous state to do this in? What happens if both husband and wife apply in different states?

I got the impression some US states were easier to get a divorce in than others so it is interesting as to how it is all co-ordinated (or not).

It doesn't seem quite so reasonable in median length marriages of 8 years before the wife initiates a no fault divorce. The wife

[RavVid]

Ignore the last incoherent sentence.

[RavVid]

@Avicenna Interesting. Reinforces my plan to keep all my own assets and income. :)

[Alli39]

I don't know that much about the actual statistics of modern alimony, I just know where the idea came from. I think some of it still gets paid because women get to put their careers aside to a larger extent to engage in childcare (ex. can't work overtime because they have to pick up the kids, more likely to take a year or two off in the middle of their careers to care for very young children, etc all of which are disadvantages she had compared to her husband in their careers). I assume the alimony law depends on your state of residence and I doubt you can change your residence fast enough to affect the court case. Maybe someone's done it, but I doubt it's that easy. And heck if I know how marriage laws work between states, I'm very much not married.

[RavVid]

@Alli39 Thanks for the view. :) Seems it could be complicated. Better not to marry I think.

[Alli39]

I mean if you have no desire to marry then you definitely don't have to, but I wouldn't just not do it because you fear eventually being in a situation where you have to pay alimony or child support. Marriage has its own benefits if you care to pursue them, but it's not like you absolutely have to marry to be happy either. Some couples chosen to be committed without the legal aspect of things so if that's what you and your current/eventual partner want then there's no real issue with it.

[RavVid]

@Alli39 No marriage is not compulsory... except in one respect... if you are in an unmarried relationship for 2 years then for practical purposes you are considered married in my country. This was not a matter of legislation but a court ruling. It can change under your feet.

Still I am not intending to open debate on common law marriages any more than alimony in the US.

I am always interested in how things work in the US as we have a similar structure, and indeed we pinched a fair bit of your constitution, but a lot of stuff has developed quite differently so it is an interesting compare and contrast.

[RealMarek]

This is a good thing. Feminists complain constantly about “patriarchy” as some nebulous complex of societal expectations and norms that affect women. That is not patriarchy. Patriarchy was a system in which men were expendable in war against their will, but in exchange received benefits such as sole ownership of property in marriage, political privileges, etc. because men were sole owners of property within a marriage, if a man shirked his marital duties he had to repay a dowry and pay alimony. This is completely unnecessary when women get a significant portion of marital assets in divorce, have child support, and can get training and work. There are only two elements of patriarchy that still exist: the registration for the military draft and alimony. It’s long past time for these to end.

[LiamJHayden]

Except it doesn't actually do that. Even in the CBS link:

"It will allow judges to reduce or terminate alimony, support or maintenance payments after considering a number of factors, such as "the age and health" of the person who makes payments; the customary retirement age of that person's occupation; 'the economic impact' a reduction in alimony would have on the recipient of the payments; and the 'motivation for retirement and likelihood of returning to work' for the person making the payments."

[NamerOfStars]

It's a good thing, and more importantly, it's a reasonable thing- you're a woman, not a child; you can get a damn job. However, it's also politically VERY risky; unless he's trying to show how different he is from the Democrats, I don't know what DeSantis is playing at. This is the same guy who vetoed default 50/50 custody.

[inhua]

as "sexist" and "misogynist" as Donald Trump is made out to be, he's never done anything remotely close to this

actually he hasn't done anything for men but still the liberal news media thinks he's turning the world back into the "patriarchy" lmao

[Miristheiss]

It is a GREAT thing.

Alimony should not even exist. Once two ADULTS divorce, they each go their separate ways.

None of this crap where one person has to pay for the others existence.

[madgoat]

In a world with no fault divorce making marriage akin to a business partnership, I don't understand why alimony would exist.

I believe existing arrangements are unaffected and this only affects new divorce arrangements, right?

[Avicenna]

How long were these women counting on getting alimony in the first place? It's not as if they would get it if their ex died? What about if they remarried?

[Avicenna]

Just to show you how people just jump to conclusions without actually looking at the issues and the debate, DeSantis vetoed an earlier bill because of concerns existing alimony agreements, yet these women are mad at him? As if he can pass a bill by himself.

And, yeah, no one should be working until they're 80 to pay alimony.

[Avicenna]

It doesn't look like the law applies to pre-existing agreements.

[gorydetails]

I think that’s reasonable. A woman should have a 5-year limit to get her shit together.

[DextroShade]

Sounds like some gold-digging whores just lost their payday and will have to actually work. Good on DeSantis for freeing these men from what is essentially a lifetime of slavery. More Republicans need to follow his lead.

[Hispanic-Cool-Guy]

Good. Once you decide to divorce someone then you shouldn't be entitled to their money.

[FunkyMonkee]

Sounds good, to me! If the bitch can't get a damn job and support herself after a few months, she's just a sponge!

[WhitneySnow]

That was a bad move for him politically. He will turn a lot of women against him and not even be re elected Governor, let alone president.

[Avicenna]

He can't run for governor again

[WhitneySnow]

@Avicenna which I guess explains why he did it. Thanks.

[RingOfFire]

It's like this. Either women want to be treated equally or not. You don't get to have the candy if you won't accept the crap that comes with equality.

[Staximus]

All women living off alimony who are too old to work should be able to keep it, but all women who are able to support themselves should have to do so

[Exterminatore]

Very good thing. It’s 2023. There is no reason to pay for the past use of someone’s vagina for life.

[msc545]

It is a good thing although I doubt it was done with any fairness in mind.

[RealMarek]

Safe bet, that, given that Republicans were the ones who eliminated the tax exemption for alimony in divorces finalized after 2019 and many states did not adjust it downward enough to compensate for that fact.

[msc545]

@RealMarek why am I not surprised?

[RealMarek]

@msc545 It was pitched as lifting the “divorce subsidy” as part of a family values plank. The real reason they did it was that the Trump tax cuts were supposed to be revenue-neutral, so they had to claw back what was lost from reduced tax rates by eliminating deductions. The USG never thinks about the consequences of radical change on ordinary people, so a minority of people were completely screwed so a majority could see lower taxes. Also, given that women initiate 70% of divorces and receive 95% of alimony, it was not a removal of the “divorce subsidy” but a huge increase in its value.

[msc545]

@RealMarek wow. ugh!

[KrakenAttackin]

Excellent and and I hope other states follow.

[andreasderjuengere]

This is an election stunt. Nothing more.