Total Posts:10|Showing Posts:1-10
Jump to topic:

Why is Alimony a Bad Thing?

Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 12:41:15 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
Outside of being upset, why is alimony a bad thing? Doesn't the abolishing of it negate the purpose of a marriage?

I have always viewed it as a time investment matching for financial success.
For example, taking care of the kids and working part time, while the spouse goes to college and takes internships and finally gets a good job. After the divorce, one spouse is clearly better off than the other.
My work here is, finally, done.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 12:47:25 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 12:41:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Outside of being upset, why is alimony a bad thing? Doesn't the abolishing of it negate the purpose of a marriage?

I have always viewed it as a time investment matching for financial success.
For example, taking care of the kids and working part time, while the spouse goes to college and takes internships and finally gets a good job. After the divorce, one spouse is clearly better off than the other.

That is a calculated risk that can be easily dealt with through prenups or joint ownership so property can be divided evenly. Moreover, I don't think many would rule out temporary alimony for such a situation, if it were designed to, say, allow the person to attend college and gain a job. But mooching off the work of an ex-partner for the rest of your life is completely unwarranted - you can remarry and still get substantial alimony from your ex. That's absurd.
Khaos_Mage
Posts: 23,214
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 1:00:19 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 12:47:25 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/2/2015 12:41:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Outside of being upset, why is alimony a bad thing? Doesn't the abolishing of it negate the purpose of a marriage?

I have always viewed it as a time investment matching for financial success.
For example, taking care of the kids and working part time, while the spouse goes to college and takes internships and finally gets a good job. After the divorce, one spouse is clearly better off than the other.

That is a calculated risk that can be easily dealt with through prenups or joint ownership so property can be divided evenly.
You're kidding, right?
Pre-nups are usually for people that have substantial incomes to begin with, especially with assets that lead to income, to limit the 'status of life" or whatever it's called.

How do two average high schoolers prepare for anything 20 years from now, financially speaking?

Moreover, I don't think many would rule out temporary alimony for such a situation, if it were designed to, say, allow the person to attend college and gain a job. But mooching off the work of an ex-partner for the rest of your life is completely unwarranted - you can remarry and still get substantial alimony from your ex. That's absurd.

I'll grant you that after remarriage, the alimony should stop.
However, if you combine all your assets (including time and lost years of life) and some of these assets are lost forever, and others keep accruing income, I don't think it is unfair to get money from an ex in exchange for your lost time.
And, co-ownership is not a solution in my example. Consider:
Sell the business, pay out half, then immediately start a new business with the same clientele, as soon as possible. The spouse just got screwed.
My work here is, finally, done.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 3:59:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 1:00:19 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
At 3/2/2015 12:47:25 PM, TN05 wrote:
At 3/2/2015 12:41:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Outside of being upset, why is alimony a bad thing? Doesn't the abolishing of it negate the purpose of a marriage?

I have always viewed it as a time investment matching for financial success.
For example, taking care of the kids and working part time, while the spouse goes to college and takes internships and finally gets a good job. After the divorce, one spouse is clearly better off than the other.

That is a calculated risk that can be easily dealt with through prenups or joint ownership so property can be divided evenly.
You're kidding, right?
Pre-nups are usually for people that have substantial incomes to begin with, especially with assets that lead to income, to limit the 'status of life" or whatever it's called.

How do two average high schoolers prepare for anything 20 years from now, financially speaking?

I don't know. Establish a contract for the terms in case of divorce. It's not the guy's fault his wife made that decision.

Moreover, I don't think many would rule out temporary alimony for such a situation, if it were designed to, say, allow the person to attend college and gain a job. But mooching off the work of an ex-partner for the rest of your life is completely unwarranted - you can remarry and still get substantial alimony from your ex. That's absurd.

I'll grant you that after remarriage, the alimony should stop.
However, if you combine all your assets (including time and lost years of life) and some of these assets are lost forever, and others keep accruing income, I don't think it is unfair to get money from an ex in exchange for your lost time.

Except that time was used, voluntarily, by the partner. it was that partner's choice. Why is it the other's responsibility to pay for that? They made a decision. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

And, co-ownership is not a solution in my example. Consider:
Sell the business, pay out half, then immediately start a new business with the same clientele, as soon as possible. The spouse just got screwed.

The spouse would have gotten half the money from sale of a business they didn't work for or contribute one second of their time to. How is that being screwed? Sounds like a nice deal to me.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 4:08:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
I mean, by that logic, shouldn't the partner who was working have all the money they spent on their partner? The working partner would have had much more money for him/herself, but probably had to spend at least 50% of it on the partner (accounting for food, gas, car, events, larger house, gifts etc.). Why is that partner's time and labor not considered?

Think about it. The partner who stayed at home, of their own choice, and likely received hundreds of thousands of dollars they would not have otherwise received if no for being married. They put no work or effort into getting this money, and instead were able to pursue the choice they made (having a kid or whatever). If effect, for the duration of the marriage, their lifestyle was subsidized. When the relationship ends, that money goes away and it is the responsibility of that partner to fund themselves - they have no right to that money anymore. Why should the moneymaking partner - the one who has devoted half their income to the non-working partner - responsible for them anymore? They made a choice to stay home. It's not the working partner's fault.
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 6:31:07 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
The better question is "when is it a bad thing" Alimony should only be paid in two instances. When either the man or woman gives up their education to support the other so they can become successful or a successful business is started while married. Other than that, alimony is a bad thing. Alimony should only last ten years also regardless of remarriage.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Zarroette
Posts: 2,951
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/2/2015 7:38:06 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 12:41:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Outside of being upset, why is alimony a bad thing? Doesn't the abolishing of it negate the purpose of a marriage?

I have always viewed it as a time investment matching for financial success.
For example, taking care of the kids and working part time, while the spouse goes to college and takes internships and finally gets a good job. After the divorce, one spouse is clearly better off than the other.

That's the women's choice and she has to deal with the consequences. Women are able to work in jobs nowadays; alimony comes from a time when they were not. If a woman decides that she wants to have children, then she needs to realise that she will be expected to take care of the kids whilst the man works and that she will be unable to have a career (or else she will burn herself out or muck up the kids). If she doesn't like these terms, then she shouldn't have children.

Encouraging women to not get jobs, but instead heavily encouraging women to divorce wealthy men, leads to women being lazy in marriage and divorcing for alimony, and hence mucking up the marriage and damaging any children involved. This is a major contributing factor to the ridiculous divorce rates we have nowadays.

Get rid of alimony and stop encouraging this destructive flaking. Instead, encourage women to be loyal, feminine housewives that can have a part-time job if raising the children doesn't take up all the time. This will ultimately make her happier, as well as everyone else.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 4:19:20 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 12:41:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Outside of being upset, why is alimony a bad thing? Doesn't the abolishing of it negate the purpose of a marriage?

I have always viewed it as a time investment matching for financial success.
For example, taking care of the kids and working part time, while the spouse goes to college and takes internships and finally gets a good job. After the divorce, one spouse is clearly better off than the other.

How does this factor in things like adultery? If there is an amicable (as much as a divorce can be) split, I can understand a brief time of alimony payments if its a demonstrated necessity, but if the partner that is being divorced actively broke what trust a marriage is supposed to be based on, why should the one that committed the infidelity be rewarded?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Bennett91
Posts: 4,206
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/3/2015 4:27:52 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 12:41:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Outside of being upset, why is alimony a bad thing? Doesn't the abolishing of it negate the purpose of a marriage?

I have always viewed it as a time investment matching for financial success.
For example, taking care of the kids and working part time, while the spouse goes to college and takes internships and finally gets a good job. After the divorce, one spouse is clearly better off than the other.

It seems acceptable for a short time. But after the divorce how long must a person be financially shackled to a person they no longer want to associate with? Especially when the spouse receiving has no incentive to get a job or marry again.
KnowledgeBot5
Posts: 41
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
3/4/2015 2:15:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 3/2/2015 12:41:15 PM, Khaos_Mage wrote:
Outside of being upset, why is alimony a bad thing? Doesn't the abolishing of it negate the purpose of a marriage?

I have always viewed it as a time investment matching for financial success.
For example, taking care of the kids and working part time, while the spouse goes to college and takes internships and finally gets a good job. After the divorce, one spouse is clearly better off than the other.

Hmmm, thats an interesting way of looking at it, after all, its a mutual decision- but, what if the stay at home spouse, remarries, and the new husband is well off, very successful, etc.. while the man you left, struggles financially with child support/alimony and 50% of all child rearing expenses and 75% of any college expenses- and can barely make ends meet. IYO who is better off?