Enough already

[WorkingDAD]

And by the way, I would also have no issue with using an income of a SAHP in divorce, if the ex-spouse gave a paycheck to the SAHP during the marriage...but a lot of spouses think they can exploit the contributions of one spouse for career gain during the marriage with no impact to them in divorce. Luckily spousal support helps protect against that.

what about paying for everything while other parent "stay-home" ? Would you consider this as form of pay check? Divide cost of living buy two and here is your pay check..

Or it's not count? right? It's not contribution from other spouse right? I wonder what would be your position on that...

 

[mcdreamy]

what about paying for everything while other parent "stay-home" ? Would you consider this as form of pay check? Divide cost of living buy two and here is your pay check..

Or it's not count? right? It's not contribution from other spouse right? I wonder what would be your position on that...

umm. no. Paying for everything? It would seem apparent that you aren't paying for daycare, laundry services, etc., or do you fail to grasp that concept?

I find this thread kinda humorous. I'm going for SS, and I'll get a fair chunk of it as well. I actually did sacrifice my career plan, because he wanted a warm dinner at night as well as have me work for him. His ideal.

(oh btw, littleman, workingdad and shellshocked, he's also pretty fooked on child support - and he's not the bio dad.. am I blowing your mind yet?)

 

[WorkingDAD]

umm. no. Paying for everything? It would seem apparent that you aren't paying for daycare, laundry services, etc., or do you fail to grasp that concept?

I do not see where I fail to grasp concept. Concept pretty much simple. When you stay home and lets say take care about household and (or) kids you already get compensation in all what provided to you by other spouse (housing, food, clothes, entertainments an so on so on). some may say compensations like that do not meet contribution. But in any case at very least this should be considered. What is wrong with that?

I find this thread kinda humorous. I'm going for SS, and I'll get a fair chunk of it as well.

Nothing humorous in this tread... Long term consequences for that "entitlement generation" will be not good

I actually did sacrifice my career plan, because he wanted a warm dinner at night as well as have me work for him. His ideal.

that was not only his but yours deal too. You did angry to that right? why don't you take part of your responsibility on that to? Or may be it hard to accept to you that it was convenient for you too? Can you honestly tell for your self tat you did not wanted that and try really hard to avoid it and move with your carrier ?

(oh btw, littleman, workingdad and shellshocked, he's also pretty fooked on child support - and he's not the bio dad.. am I blowing your mind yet?)

It is sad that you feel proud of yourself about that. Do you really believe that that will make you happy? You are for the big disappointment in a future. Trust me.

I do not want to ruing your sweet dream but it's not done deal so I would suggest you to direct at least some of your energy toward get yourself self efficient and not dependable on somebody... And as for CS from non-bio parent you better make sure you did pursue bio dad first...

 

[Pursuinghappiness]

BINGO!!!!

McDreamy's post is exactly my point. See how this works??? You have a partner at home who's contributions to the marriage go unappreciated, unfunded, and unacknowledged. You treat your SAHP spouse like they should lick your shoes and be grateful to take care of you and the kids and clean the house and miss the point that they're providing an important, essential service to your family that you'd have to find logistical and financial services to help with otherwise:

Spouse A: "YOU DO NOTHING BUT SIT AROUND ALL YOUR ASS ALL DAY EATING BONBONS!...blah, blah, blah"

Spouse B: "I TAKE CARE OF THESE KIDS AND THE HOUSE ALL DAY WHILE YOU ARE ABLE TO GET OUT AND HAVE A CAREER...blah, blah, blah"


They get tired of it, they get resentful...helps lead to a divorce...and guess what happens? The system is designed to escalate the conflict. Lawyers on both sides battle that the SAHP does nothing while breadwinner slaves away...while the SAHP shows that the other spouse is too wrapped up in work to bother managing the kids and home.

And guess what comes out of that? Both sides lose...the family loses. Because neither side has been treated fairly, neither spouse has acknowledged and appreciated the value of the other's contribution and divorce is designed to escalate conflict and bankrupt families.

This is why spousal support is necessary in some instances as was my original point, or you will continue this cycle. Spousal support was designed to equalize the contributions made by spouses during the marriage...which is why its usually given for the fraction of the time that the couple was married. It seeks to give the other party a chance to get to school and/or get back in the workforce,etc. Its a fair thing to do.

Its also the same reason that the courts are now trying to have 50/50 parenting. Because the working spouse shouldn't be penalized for working by having their children taken away from them. It, again, is the fair thing to do.

You can't say shared parenting is fair and say spousal support isn't...that's simply a load of crap. And the more you continue this bias, you will continue get screwed in court rather than mediating out FAIR agreements between divorcing couples that protect both of their interests.

So keep it up...but quit bitching that the system isn't fair. The system is just a reflection of the many assholes (like some of the people engaged in this thread) that can't be humane enough to be fair to the spouse they're divorcing.

 

[billm]

I don't think assigning value to the contributions during a marriage matter in any way - that is the purpose of marriage, to share all things.

Some in this thread are confusing SS with equalization - equalization handles splitting of all asset, including pensions etc, gained during the marriage, so arguing about who worked harder with respect to SS is pointless.

However, I prefer SS to simply be determined by events during the marriage that have limited ones ability to earn a living. Simple. If you both worked for example and took care of kids equally or did not have kids - NO SS! Even IF there is a big difference in incomes. One already lived off the other and gets half of their work efforts in that case, and that should not continue after marriage.

However if there was career damage AND that person makes less money than the other, then SS is fair - though it should be time limited when that damage can be mitigated in a reasonable amount of time. Permanent damage can mean permanent SS, but the fact that the greater income earner shared their greater income during the marriage should offset that damage.

Also, SS must have INCENTIVE built in for the recipient to earn their own living and increase their income - human nature dictates this. This means that SS should DECREASE every year. For it to stay the same and then suddenly stop makes no sense to me if the purpose is to help the person get back into the work force.

 

[winterwolf7]

Fair would have been wonderful, I was quite willing to split everything 50/50, pay CS and offered SS until the little one was old enough to be in school and she could go to work after only being home 3 years.

Instead she wanted 80% and SS for the rest of her sorry life.

She got 70% and SS for a few years. Her government bailout money plus the money from me means she makes more now than she ever did while her sorry butt was employed.

Fair indeed. She gets 70% of our assets, 55% of my salary, 100% of the baby bonuses and tax breaks, 100% disability money for our son, the car and custody of our son.

What did I get? Debt, poverty, hunger, misery, tortured by CAS. At least I get EOW with my son, though even that was not easy to get.

 

[billm]

Fair would have been wonderful, I was quite willing to split everything 50/50, pay CS and offered SS until the little one was old enough to be in school and she could go to work after only being home 3 years.

Instead she wanted 80% and SS for the rest of her sorry life.

She got 70% and SS for a few years. Her government bailout money plus the money from me means she makes more now than she ever did while her sorry butt was employed.

Fair indeed. She gets 70% of our assets, 55% of my salary, 100% of the baby bonuses and tax breaks, 100% disability money for our son, the car and custody of our son.

What did I get? Debt, poverty, hunger, misery, tortured by CAS. At least I get EOW with my son, though even that was not easy to get.

Was the order for 70% of the net worth, or 50% and you view it as 70%?

If the order was for 70%, what was the justification?

 

[winterwolf7]

I settled out of court a week before first case conference when she conceded to at least allow joint legal custody so I could in theory have some say in my son, his schooling and his treatment (he's autistic). He was more important than the money, and the extra 20k she got would easily have been consumed by continuing a trial.

After the first few months of separation her lawyer taught her to think big. Her first financial statement was honest enough, but she changed lawyers and subsequent ones got more and more outlandish, demanding I pay back all the money her family had given us for our matrimonial home. That home was purchased more than a year after we were married and she was entitled to half but not a penny more. However I wasn't willing to go bankrupt by continuing in court. She had no documentation for any of her claims, we asked repeatedly for 9 months but she ignored us.

 

[winterwolf7]

Basically she snowed me, took the 70% then got in touch with CAS to ruin the rest of my life. Have not recovered yet, and continue to hemorrhage money fighting CAS.

 

[cashcow4ex]

(oh btw, littleman, workingdad and shellshocked, he's also pretty fooked on child support - and he's not the bio dad.. am I blowing your mind yet?)

Wow .....all I can say is you are one disturbed, vindictive, pathetic individual.

I would wish you a life of misery and unhappiness, but it seems your already there!

 

[frustratedwithex]

However if there was career damage AND that person makes less money than the other, then SS is fair - though it should be time limited when that damage can be mitigated in a reasonable amount of time. Permanent damage can mean permanent SS, but the fact that the greater income earner shared their greater income during the marriage should offset that damage.

Also, SS must have INCENTIVE built in for the recipient to earn their own living and increase their income - human nature dictates this. This means that SS should DECREASE every year. For it to stay the same and then suddenly stop makes no sense to me if the purpose is to help the person get back into the work force.

If the career damage was permanent and that person makes less than the other, why should SS be limited?

Also, if SS recipient is back in the work force working, yet their ability to earn was so damaged from marriage, why would decreasing SS every year be appropriate?

 

[ddol1]

This post might sound like a rant to some, others might just see it as an objective oulook on the circumstance we all individually face in our marriages and the difficulty of assigning a fair compensation for a payee if the compensation is deserving - perhaps after a 20 year marriage where both spouses worked thier darndest to make thier home the best they could for thier children to grow in.

billm - you make sound comments aside from your belief that diminishing SS is the Right thing to do. I have pointed this out before but you have yet to truely justify this part of your statement. Explain how if SS is actually determined by entitlement, amount based on the differences of incomes (my understanding is the system has no other way of making the distinction of giving back certain losses one spouse sacrificed for the family with the intent that this sacrifice was for the entire marriage which would include the working years, the child rearing years and in the end the final bonus - The years in which the couple can relax and enjoy the fruits of both thier commitments to the family unit. Cut this arrangement when it is half complete, when the spouse who sacrificed thier career for instance never has the oportunity to make up the lost years when now, following the seperation, especially when the amount of years lost can be significant that this spouse can never make up pthe lost years no matter how hard they worked from that point on to what would be the normal retirement age of 65.

Now if the above is really just looked at by the courts as entitlement for x dollars for y years equals z dollars total. We read that the court has the right to vary this by increasing the yearly amount while decreasing duration or the opposite, to decrease the yearly amount and stretch out the duration. All three solutions equal Z dollars so in effect the cost to the payor remains constant. Tell me how you can justify decreasing the amount yearly while maintaining the total amount of support over the duration to equal Z dollars - just like the first three examples that the courts do base thier decision on. Think of it reverse - Courts base sipport as a total dollar figure equal Z (Z being different in each case by circumstance) the thing that follows is to try and figure out how to be fair to both the payor and the payee while the amount is paid. The amount being Z dollars.

Last point. Can you explain to how decreasing support can be justifyable? Year one it is determined that a fair amout is x dollars (lets call this $500/month) With this $500 a month the payee can make up the loss she has suffered and use it as efficiently or as wastefully as they chose - it is thier right. But lets assume that the payee works full time and rreally is trying to do the right thing - the $500 makes thier life just a little easier and perhaps might go into a retirement account to make up for the fact that they no longer have this benefit. But in the end it doesn't matter as it is the choice of the payee to be foolish or smart.

So now this same $500 is used to make up for the rent she is now paying - a simple affordable place with no fancy nothing, no fancy vacation - the $500 is just enough to get by. But now you say the right thing to do is cut this down to $100 in year five, or year ten, twenty? Have we reached the point where the support is basically a make it to 65 when other support will begin to kick in? With your decreasing support you would see this person go from having a basic apartment to now having to rent a closet in the basement of somebody elses residence just because the support has now decreased to $50 because the payee is now 63 with two years to go?

I think your assumtion is the payee is capable of starting up where they left off even though 12 years has passed while the couple jointly decided that one spouse would stay home and run the household while easing the burden on the breadwinner to concentrate on bringing home the income and to devote spare time to the children as it should be. But now that 12 years have passed - do you honestly think this person can just pick up where they left off in both job (where they no longer have up to date skills) or even age where now instead of being 27 at thier prime they are now 40 or possibley 50 and it no longer is thier world out there - it is the world of the young and the older must squeeze in there because they indeed do not have 15 or twenty years experience in thier work. They now have nothing because so many years have passed. They can go to school and maybe they can find a place but again would it be the same as if they had worked continuous?

This to me is what SS is really about - to find a way to put into dollar figures what a person sacrificed and gave to the family unit and even harder the consequence this person will face out in the "support yourself world" and somehow put a SS dollar figure that will help make the difference? I conclude for all the above this couple they met at work and they both were up and coming professionals (or any other profession that requires more than a smile to perform) who held the same job, the same pay and the same benefits. Do you honestly think the payee will be fully caught up at any point down the road? No because in our world this payee missed the boat "sort of to speak" in that they are no longer 27 in thier prime but now they are 40, 45, 50? years old????

No different than my circumstance. I will not make up the difference in time. I will not improve my position or my wealth or my retirement position - these are not the outlooks of someone on disability that sadly begun just at the point when after working real hard and giving everything I could, was finally at the top of my game and in one moment that all became a point of my past. Mine is to survive and possibly maintain some form of dignity for my remaining years. Is it fair that SS should ddecline to anything less than what is afforded by the courts based solely on our circumstance and what each of us contributed to the family unit. To retain a little of the benefits the hard work brought to this family while respecting that of the other spouse? Is this why the awards do go onto a sliding scale of sorts where the total Z changes by the length of marriage and all the other factors that are used to determine that number Z???

 

[ddol1]

Gosh I wish I could typppe faster! Ok and the fingers would go where I think them but aside form this........... Spousal support does not always have to be to screw the payor. Yes it will be harder for the payor as they do not get to keep all the future income because in effect family law states that it gets thrown into the pot. Then th eincome of the payee goes into that pot. Finally a fair distribution of the pot based on the circumstance of the marriage shall determine the ratio of the payout. Nothing more, nothing less.

And remeber the kids still come first and we understand the intent there is both parents to the best of thier ability shall maintain the support the children would have recieved if the parents remained together.

Isn't this the reason why nobody wins? everybody loses. there are no winners or is there? I think it is possible to settle where all concerned come out a winner. Yes it won't be the same for the very reason there is now two households to support instead of the one. So win or lose - it will be hard for all. At least it should. And then there are the few who for some reason did not get a fair deal in thier mind (perhaps the other side thinks this as well?)

No matter what - I would hope that over time this system we have will leave the money with the families and the abusers can be weeded out to best enable the system to do its job. And that is simply to divide a union that at times can't be divided without hurting one or both in the process. Ok this is an idealist view and reality is far from reality for some and far from fair as well. So what is better - the system as it was 40 years ago or where we are today..... are we headed in the right direction?

 

[cashcow4ex]

ddol1 whats your thoughts on this scenario.

Boy and girl meet and get married at 17. They have children at 18 and one of them decides to stay home to raise them. They divorce 20 years later. Your telling me that at 37 the person isnt capable of bouncing back on there feet after 5 or 10 years?

Family law would have the ex paying spousal support indefintely based on the length of marriage.

I think Bill is saying that not all cases warrant indefinte SS.

 

[Pursuinghappiness]

I think Bill is saying that not all cases warrant indefinte SS.

And I would agree with him. However, that wasn't the original post. Then the poster continued to be an obnoxious jerk and imply that SAHP are lazy and don't do anything.

I would also argue that not all custody cases should be shared custody arrangements.

Fair indeed. She gets 70% of our assets, 55% of my salary, 100% of the baby bonuses and tax breaks, 100% disability money for our son, the car and custody of our son.

What did I get? Debt, poverty, hunger, misery, tortured by CAS. At least I get EOW with my son, though even that was not easy to get.

I wasn't being gender specific in my earlier posts. The issue as I previously stated is that the system is designed to encourage extremism and jackass behavior. You get spouses who think that they own the children, or own the money and the system is designed that its hard to be balanced. Most people can't mediate...so one spouse goes "extreme" in one direction and the only thing the other person can do is either engage in the same type of behavior or try to be fair and hope someone notices. Often the fair and reasonable person gets screwed.

Spousal support exists to attempt to equalize salary inequities..Custody access arrangements exist to equalize parenting. When you are married, whether you like it or not later, you have entered into a situation that you SHARE the acquisitions of the relationship including lifestyle and children. And divorce seeks to maintain that status for a length of time to ensure that both partners have ongoing equal access to the lifestyle they created during marriage.

That's what the OP doesn't get...his bias is obvious and annoying...and it helps perpetuate the ongoing issues with family court because its extremist, unfair behavior.

 

[JB514]

Okay, I assume you disagree with my scenario.

They should not be the same. The earnings of the dead one is 0. In divorce it is not 0. That is the difference. They are not dead, they are off financially unaffected by the marriage, but the other is - simple business concept.

Maybe I am comparing apples and oranges, but here it goes if talking in business concept as you say- if someone spent years building a business, but after some time the business does not work out and goes under what do you do? Expect someone to cover your losses?? No! you go out into the world, learn from your mistakes (sometimes), and move on! Or in a restaurant after you finish you food and only after you say you didn't like and want to be reimbursed? Then why did you eat it?

He/she pick that person to spend their lives with but after they are not satisfied they want to be reimbursed? Come on... it's life sh*t happens...you move on.

Also, on a different note....most likely people that get ss hate the other's guts for what they "put" the through, but want to stay in touch at least for the money of ss? Again...should just part ways and move on

 

[ddol1]

for cashcow4ex's question and perhaps billm too for the sliding issue for our 51 year old couple.....

ddol1 whats your thoughts on this scenario.

Boy and girl meet and get married at 17. They have children at 18 and one of them decides to stay home to raise them. They divorce 20 years later. Your telling me that at 37 the person isnt capable of bouncing back on there feet after 5 or 10 years?

Family law would have the ex paying spousal support indefintely based on the length of marriage.

I think Bill is saying that not all cases warrant indefinte SS.

billm advocates diminishing support say from $1000/month to $100 a month over a length of time. I disagree with the sliding concept as it is already there in the act. The numbers are generated, after entitlement is secured, in a large way by the length of marriage - short gets little, very long marriages get the most (both sorry are dependant on available incomes of both spouses but the principle rremains) Todays rulings do have a sliding componenent that takes into account the total dollar amount over the years of support. Support is not about the amount per year or the amount of years but the product of the two.

Direct to the seventeen year olds. I had made specific reference to a professional couple or a couple who had some form of "technical job" that took more than a smile to perform. Thsi wipes out the 18 year olds unless they are of the prodogy type? (the people who finish university at age 14) so yes I hold to my position.

The 27 year olds who got thru the schooling or thru the apprentice program of three or four years are not 18 year olds. next the 27 year olds would have already had a good start into thier careers at 27 (say 5 years) so at 20 years the 47 year olds would now be compared to one which now is 47 with 25 years experience in thier profession (pretty well at the top of the pile- now earning at or near the max of thier profession) and the spouse who is now 47. This spouse now has zero years because thier knowledge is out of date so it is back off to school for them for the next three or four years. they are now 51.

At 51 it is time to get a job with zero years experience - how long has been since you tried to get a job with zero experience. I did this 15 years out of high school after spending 4 years getting cut open over and over, stabbed and prodded to boot and then it was off to school (I actually returned before I was supposed to to save a full year of waiting) but I tell you it was tough as a 33 year old to keep up with the young ones plus I had to relearn the high school stuff while learning the current stuff - It was hard. I did it because my family depended on me and I had one chance - ONE. back to the 37 year old who was now looking for work after not working for almost 10 years. tell you that was one heavy monkey on my shoulders at ten years - at 20 years it would be even harder. So yes I do know how hard it is. One advantage I did have was 1. life experience 2. determination 3. a work ethic that would kill most 4. family and my kids were still number one through this whole affair 5. at 51 I do not think I could do it again (ok I am biased cuz of my disabilities have really worn me out - I just try and make each day a good one and if it isn't I try again )

Sorry back on topic
Our example is now 51 years old and is freash in the market. Have you tried to get a decent job at 51 with no experience? It can be done and our example has a new good job!! 51 and now this spouse has to catch up to their other half who is now 51 with I think it is 28 or 29 years under thier belt.

So Cashcow4ex: Can you see these two individuals (they are no longer spouses - barely ex's by this point in a large way) get anyhere even close to the same status in thier lifetimes? Time is against the stay at home spouse because now with no pension earned in the last how many years and no senority and low on the pay scale and can you really see these two people in the next 14 years (assuming nothing because they WILL have different lifestyles because the spouse who now has 29 years is in the top percentile of earning potential as long as they do not get laid off because they are getting too old and is about to be rreplaced with the young up and comings.....

Can you argue anything here? maybe you can help me get billm to explain why yearly sliding spousal support is the fair and just thing to do to our couple here who are both now 51 years old??? (Billl would have the payee spouse SSless a long long time ago but the payor spouse is now with 29 years senority who I think used all that money from the sliding SS scenario saved up for the lifetime of a Hawaii vaction booked for this winter in celebration of the other finally graduating and returning to the workforce?)

 

[littleman]

ok maybe I should have made this clear from the get go so there is no question as to my stance on this. I do not pay SS nor does my bf pay SS nor do I accept SS. I do not think that this is automatic that when a marriage dissolves is one person entitled to SS. Has zero to do with CS. Every child deserves support of both parents (emotionally, physically and finacially)
I am pissed at people who think they have an eternal right to get SS. Like the business transaction example previously stated.
Spouse A hires Spouse B. Business transaction goes sour so Spouse A fires Spouse B. Spouse A gives Spouse B "severance/SS" but only for certain amount of time. Sounds fair. This crap about Spouse B entitled to receive severance indefinately give it up! And like my original post you cant tell me any different it equates to being on the system but Spouse B is on Spouse A bank role system and not self sufficient.

That is my rant and I see many of you on here have the same opinion. I think Family Courts should relook at this and remove their head from the sand. Spouse B (male or female) is very capable of making a living. I did read a post on here where spouse b (wife) stays home to raise kids but hen poster goes on to say for 20 years??????? WTF????????? did they have 6 children 5 years apart....being housewife or househusband to take care of children doesnt mean you stay that way when children are gone..STAY HOME TO TAKE CARE OF CHILDREN!!!They are gone now time for you to get going on with your life which usually means get a job!!! (curious how many feathers I have ruffled this time)

 

[billm]

If the career damage was permanent and that person makes less than the other, why should SS be limited?

I did not intend to imply that, reread my post. I said that permanent damage may mean permanent SS.

Also, if SS recipient is back in the work force working, yet their ability to earn was so damaged from marriage, why would decreasing SS every year be appropriate?

Because every year they reduce the damage, as they (re)build their career. Simple.

 

[billm]

...
Spousal support exists to attempt to equalize salary inequities..

Ahh, this is where we disagree!!

Why should differences in salaries by an issue? I think the focus should be on compensation for lost earning potential as a result of the marriage.

For a simple example, in the case of no kids, both worked, why should a difference in salary ever be considered - the sharing was done during the marriage - the greater income earner gladly shared all DURING the marriage to the BENEFIT of the lower income earner (in the scenario I have stated - no sacrifices!). Why, when the marriage is OVER should one continue to share their greater income?? (How about forcing them to share sex too then?!!)

...When you are married, whether you like it or not later, you have entered into a situation that you SHARE the acquisitions of the relationship including lifestyle and children. And divorce seeks to maintain that status for a length of time to ensure that both partners have ongoing equal access to the lifestyle they created during marriage.

ongoing?? Can you define that - are you saying that once you are married and then divorce, the lifestyle must be exactly the same for both people via equally sharing both incomes forever? What a horrible concept!

Again - this is where we differ in opinion. I believe when the marriage is over, the financial tie is over too. Equalization handles splitting assets acquired evenly (even though one contributed more financially).

So after the marriage is OVER, then SS is warranted if and only if one's earning potential was damaged as a result of the marriage. And furthermore, that SS should be constructed in such a way as to give incentive for the recipient to work as hard as they can to improve their standard of living. By this I mean that SS automatically decreases every year, as it is assumed that every year the person is no longer affected by the arrangements of the marriage, their career damage is lessened, and so should their compensation.