TIME - Alimony is Broken, But Let's Not Fix It

Demonspawn · 2014-09-03T19:57:50+00:00

The judge in the Smith case reduced alimony only slightly, and kept it in force for her lifetime. Meanwhile, Mrs. Jones’s alimony was cut more than 90%, to $25,000 annually. She ended up having to sell her home, cut lifestyle expenses, and re-enter the workforce.

Yep. How dare the courts ask her to support herself.

eaton80 · 2014-09-03T19:43:23+00:00

I like the one commenter who said yes Alimony doesn't need reform, it needs abolishing.

After all can you imagine if Lincoln merely "reformed" slavery?

blueoak9 · 2014-09-03T21:45:51+00:00

Let's just say it's a crack in the wall.

The writer is still not in the clear: "If alimony duration is predetermined by length of marriage, women who are victims of domestic abuse will face an impossible choice. They will be pressured out of fear of homelessness to stay in an abusive relationship until they meet a target cutoff date for lengthening their support."

Or they could just get a job. And if their own lifestyle choice cramps their options, how is that different from other lifestyle choices - some investment banker who took ten years for whatever?

And I know all about looking for work after a certain age. Believe me.

Oh, and "abusive"? That's what the police are for. Call in the police and let the financial chips fall where they may. You should have had a job.

osbe · 2014-09-03T22:02:59+00:00

Marriage is broken; let's not do it.

Jacksambuck · 2014-09-03T21:53:48+00:00

If alimony duration is predetermined by length of marriage, women who are victims of domestic abuse will face an impossible choice. They will be pressured out of fear of homelessness to stay in an abusive relationship until they meet a target cutoff date for lengthening their support. At the same time, men who want to get out of a marriage cheaply can run to divorce court on the eve of the next cut-off period.

Gotta make sure our laws don't let those dastardly men get away with their evil antics!

TracyMorganFreeman · 2014-09-04T01:09:31+00:00

The effects of new laws will affect substantially women, who represent 97% of the people seeking and requiring alimony.

It is quite bold to suggest that all of those who seek alimony need it.

If alimony duration is predetermined by length of marriage, women who are victims of domestic abuse will face an impossible choice.

Because it's impossible to have different results based on different conditions.

At the same time, men who want to get out of a marriage cheaply can run to divorce court on the eve of the next cut-off period.

Apparently high earning women would never do that.

We should focus instead on how to encourage equal economic allocations and financial control during marriage. Some financial strategies are to mandate high schools to educate young adults about finances; to require institutions to secure informed consent from all owners for activity in joint financial accounts; to suggest to remarrying couples the use of more prenuptial and postnuptial agreements to allocate and quantify marital economic equality; and to prepare thorough estate plans that provide for trustees and third-party administrators of wealth.

So what they're saying is have more women work, which doesn't actually address any potential problems with alimony laws at all, laws which disincentivizes working.

In other words, they're just providing lip service. Their cash cow will remain intact and they have the plausible deniability of trying to make things more equal, but in name only.

xNOM · 2014-09-04T00:43:05+00:00

One thing to keep in mind: this article was written by a member of the divorce industrial complex. What he never questions is that alimony should be based on some kind of lifestyle argument. Lawyers hate the idea of basing alimony based on actual reasonable bare minimum living costs. You can guess why. Even worse for them: standard legislated alimony levels which require no negotiation.

What they fear the most is the Swedish solution, where alimony is rarely given and based on minimum living costs.

CaptSnap · 2014-09-04T02:04:52+00:00

The effects of new laws will affect substantially women, who represent 97% of the people seeking and requiring alimony.

This is eye-opening. If you couple this with most divorces are instigated by women it can be a little chilling.

Some financial strategies are to mandate high schools to educate young adults about finances; to require institutions to secure informed consent from all owners for activity in joint financial accounts; to suggest to remarrying couples the use of more prenuptial and postnuptial agreements to allocate and quantify marital economic equality; and to prepare thorough estate plans that provide for trustees and third-party administrators of wealth.

Suggesting these things would help women is hilarious. Does she think that informing women that if they drop out of the labor market for their entire lives they may have trouble finding jobs if they divorce their husbands is really going to be a newsflash? How far removed from reality would your entitlement have to take you for that to be a revelation?

On the other hand, I suspect if we did this alot of young men would look at marriage and alimony and child support and walk away at even faster rates.

Strengthening the economic partnership in marriage promotes a more predictable and measureable outcome in divorce.

Not getting married promotes the most predictable and measurable outcome, you walk out with what you walked in with.

Kawakji · 2014-09-03T22:59:07+00:00

I liked the part where the language and examples portrayed men as evil and reform as misogynistic!

2014-09-04T09:29:23+00:00

No no, we've already solved this one; Do NOT enter into a PERMANENT financial contract with a person who is a protected class under the law. Do not MARRY!

need2change740 · 2014-09-04T03:29:04+00:00

In an equal partnership all things remain equal. When the partnership dissolves, things are no longer equal, as you no longer have a partnership. Based on these statements, which I believe are accurate, how does one of the partners get to utilize the resources of the other? This is not a sound contention in my opinion. Tort reform is sorely needed in the matter of both alimony and child support. Without equal protections, we will never be equal. Feminism is about equality. So is it safe to say that a woman that asks for more than an equal share is not a feminist, but a misandryst masquerading as a feminist?

ILoveHate · 2014-09-04T05:52:59+00:00

What kind of women needs to "raise kids" or whatever the fuck for 20 years? At that point you're just being lazy and using kids as an excuse not to work. And don't even get me started on that homemaker thing.

Title	TIME - Alimony is Broken, But Let's Not Fix It
Author	eaton80
Upvotes	49
Comments	33
Date	September 3, 2014 7:40 PM UTC (11 years ago)
Subreddit	Posted in /r/MensRights
Original Link	https://old.reddit.com/r/mensrights/comments/2fdvdc/time-alimony-is-broken-but-lets-not-fix-it/
Archive Link	https://theredarchive.com/r/MensRights/time-alimony-is-broken-but-lets-not-fix-it.1620709 https://theredarchive.com/post/1620709

Comments