Should alimony exist?

[The East Marches II]

No, The pro alimony side says a spouse has a right to be compensated for their role in the marriage. If a wife or husband leaves the workforce because the partners decide it's better for the family if only one works, in the event of divorce the stay at home spouse deserves to be compensated for that huge gap in their resume caused by the support they received during the marriage for the non cash services they provided.

They don’t deserve to be compensated though. They left the workforce of their own volition in order to help out at home. They were “compensated” by their spouse supporting them and the rest of the household via their own solitary income.

Once upon a time, it was thought this whole marriage business was for life and divorce, when legalized, would be an aberration.

[Sumatra Soviet Republic]

Personally, I don't believe it should. It's a relic of a bygone era where it was rare that women worked, and if they did they made basically nothing. That's not the case in this day and age. Plus I think It's a little absurd to promote the idea that sharing someone's last name for a couple years suddenly entitles you to live off of them. What say you NSG?

Yes, it should. Pay your alimony, OP.

[Kernen]

Some states have changed this, but at the common law, alimony was a case-by-case analysis that assessed both partner's needs and resources. Alimony was challengable when the disadvantaged partner was no longer disadvantaged. To my understanding, this is the case in most states, because a court sitting in equity will not use equitable power to do what is right to validate a wrongful act (unclean hands doctrine).

Alimony as it is being discussed here is the version you see in media: a distorted concept based on the very worst or most egregious situations. It is not, in most situations, a monthly penalty for having once been married.

The latter paragraph, you are being generous. I've seen enough trench warfare on that in my former state to dispute the idea that we only see the worst of it. I wouldn't be surprised however if better governed states had a better quality of law and a higher version of justice from it's mullahs.

As for the former paragraph, it doesn't address my point on the point of the existence of alimony in the first place. If people simply don't get married and cohabitate, unless common law marriage becomes a nationwide thing, we will have yet again the standardization of that method of abuse you mentioned before.

Probably, yes. Though one can argue that in a cohabitation, one can still be liable for the detrimental reliance of the other at equity. Its just harder to prove.

[The East Marches II]

The latter paragraph, you are being generous. I've seen enough trench warfare on that in my former state to dispute the idea that we only see the worst of it. I wouldn't be surprised however if better governed states had a better quality of law and a higher version of justice from it's mullahs.

As for the former paragraph, it doesn't address my point on the point of the existence of alimony in the first place. If people simply don't get married and cohabitate, unless common law marriage becomes a nationwide thing, we will have yet again the standardization of that method of abuse you mentioned before.

Probably, yes. Though one can argue that in a cohabitation, one can still be liable for the detrimental reliance of the other at equity. Its just harder to prove.

That's a pity. No escape from the mullahs afterall.

[Cekoviu]

Eh, perhaps. It ought to be more limited than it is currently, though.

[Kernen]

Probably, yes. Though one can argue that in a cohabitation, one can still be liable for the detrimental reliance of the other at equity. Its just harder to prove.

That's a pity. No escape from the mullahs afterall.

Nope. There isn't.

[Kernen]

Eh, perhaps. It ought to be more limited than it is currently, though.

I think that, as women especially begin to earn more and two-income homes are more common, alimony is less and less at issue in divorce on the balance.

This is speculation. I lack any data on this to corroborate.

[Ifreann]

Not really. I mean, maybe sending someone a cheque every month is technically a relationship, but that's pretty obviously not the sense in which I was using the word.

I'm sure they're not.

It’s not really important whether or not it’s a relationship in the typical sense. You’re binding someone to another person financially on the grounds that they were in a relationship in which one party made a lot less money than the other. That seems to me to be a very unjust solution to the state providing inadequate welfare.

You're having the person who can afford it support the person who needs it. Not exactly the end of the world.

[Ors Might]

They don’t deserve to be compensated though. They left the workforce of their own volition in order to help out at home. They were “compensated” by their spouse supporting them and the rest of the household via their own solitary income.

That still doesn't resolve the problem of the government not wanting to foot the bill of financially supporting someone while they're unemployable as a result of having been in a marriage where they didn't participate in the work force. They have to spend a bunch of money/time at minimum, to re-skill or get more education to be qualified for a job again.

Alimony solves this from the government's perspective. The spouse pays instead of the taxpayers.

Too bad, that’s the government’s job. If it doesn’t want to do it’s job, it can’t rightfully claim our taxes.

They don’t deserve to be compensated though. They left the workforce of their own volition in order to help out at home. They were “compensated” by their spouse supporting them and the rest of the household via their own solitary income.

And when the marriage ends, they're left with no skills and no support, which makes them a burden on society.

Alimony isn't a question of deserving so much as an allocation of burden. We deem that the burden of aiding somebody who is disadvantaged in this way more properly falls on the spouse that left them in that situation rather than the taxpayer. Though, the taxpayer also bears a burden in this, so it isn't like the former spouse themselves bear the full weight of this burden.

Here’s the thing. They aren’t their spouse. anymore. They ended that relationship, it’s been terminated. They aren’t receiving any tax benefits or anything like that. They aren’t legally bound together. So why the hell is it their responsibility to support what’s eseentially a stranfer and not the state’s? The state is supposed to take on that burden, that’s the entire damn point of welfare.

[Diopolis]

Alimony should not be available to the partner who initiated the divorce.

[Ors Might]

It’s not really important whether or not it’s a relationship in the typical sense. You’re binding someone to another person financially on the grounds that they were in a relationship in which one party made a lot less money than the other. That seems to me to be a very unjust solution to the state providing inadequate welfare.

You're having the person who can afford it support the person who needs it. Not exactly the end of the world.

Can they afford it? Maybe in all technicality but they certainly can’t afford it and live decently in some cades.

[The East Marches II]

It’s not really important whether or not it’s a relationship in the typical sense. You’re binding someone to another person financially on the grounds that they were in a relationship in which one party made a lot less money than the other. That seems to me to be a very unjust solution to the state providing inadequate welfare.

You're having the person who can afford it support the person who needs it. Not exactly the end of the world.

Afford it according to the opinion of a judge and some lawyers. Yes, I'm sure that will be a fine outcome.

It's a bad joke, it's an even worse joke when those who responsible for the jettisoning of responsibility in society insist on keeping this carve which disproportionately helps one gender.

[The East Marches II]

That still doesn't resolve the problem of the government not wanting to foot the bill of financially supporting someone while they're unemployable as a result of having been in a marriage where they didn't participate in the work force. They have to spend a bunch of money/time at minimum, to re-skill or get more education to be qualified for a job again.

Alimony solves this from the government's perspective. The spouse pays instead of the taxpayers.

Too bad, that’s the government’s job. If it doesn’t want to do it’s job, it can’t rightfully claim our taxes.

And when the marriage ends, they're left with no skills and no support, which makes them a burden on society.

Alimony isn't a question of deserving so much as an allocation of burden. We deem that the burden of aiding somebody who is disadvantaged in this way more properly falls on the spouse that left them in that situation rather than the taxpayer. Though, the taxpayer also bears a burden in this, so it isn't like the former spouse themselves bear the full weight of this burden.

Here’s the thing. They aren’t their spouse. anymore. They ended that relationship, it’s been terminated. They aren’t receiving any tax benefits or anything like that. They aren’t legally bound together. So why the hell is it their responsibility to support what’s eseentially a stranfer and not the state’s? The state is supposed to take on that burden, that’s the entire damn point of welfare.

But that isn't """fair""" :^)

[Kernen]

Here’s the thing. They aren’t their spouse. anymore. They ended that relationship, it’s been terminated. They aren’t receiving any tax benefits or anything like that. They aren’t legally bound together. So why the hell is it their responsibility to support what’s eseentially a stranfer and not the state’s? The state is supposed to take on that burden, that’s the entire damn point of welfare.

Because of their role in leaving the disadvantaged spouse disadvantaged and the policy interest in preventing the potentially disadvantaged from being manipulated by threat of becoming disadvantaged.

Alimony predates any sophisticated welfare system, which is a great deal of why alimony and welfare exist side-by-side. I've little doubt that, as welfare improves, alimony will be less and less necessary. But that requires developing the welfare state.

[Des-Bal]

Because of their role in leaving the disadvantaged spouse disadvantaged and the policy interest in preventing the potentially disadvantaged from being manipulated by threat of becoming disadvantaged.

Alimony predates any sophisticated welfare system, which is a great deal of why alimony and welfare exist side-by-side. I've little doubt that, as welfare improves, alimony will be less and less necessary. But that requires developing the welfare state.

And when you say their role in leaving the spouse disadvantaged you mean "supporting their spouse." This is the behavior that's resulting in the assessment of fees, not abuse or manipulation, it's having provided support in the past.

[Saiwania]

I've little doubt that, as welfare improves, alimony will be less and less necessary. But that requires developing the welfare state.

I don't see welfare improving. If anything, the emphasis (for some people at least) is to work longer hours for less pay. Only the skilled/rich jobs are increasing their pay. Additionally, people are trending towards not retiring anymore or being unable to ever do so before they die.

[Farnhamia]

That still doesn't resolve the problem of the government not wanting to foot the bill of financially supporting someone while they're unemployable as a result of having been in a marriage where they didn't participate in the work force. They have to spend a bunch of money/time at minimum, to re-skill or get more education to be qualified for a job again.

Alimony solves this from the government's perspective. The spouse pays instead of the taxpayers.

Too bad, that’s the government’s job. If it doesn’t want to do it’s job, it can’t rightfully claim our taxes.

And when the marriage ends, they're left with no skills and no support, which makes them a burden on society.

Alimony isn't a question of deserving so much as an allocation of burden. We deem that the burden of aiding somebody who is disadvantaged in this way more properly falls on the spouse that left them in that situation rather than the taxpayer. Though, the taxpayer also bears a burden in this, so it isn't like the former spouse themselves bear the full weight of this burden.

Here’s the thing. They aren’t their spouse. anymore. They ended that relationship, it’s been terminated. They aren’t receiving any tax benefits or anything like that. They aren’t legally bound together. So why the hell is it their responsibility to support what’s eseentially a stranfer and not the state’s? The state is supposed to take on that burden, that’s the entire damn point of welfare.

Up to this year, alimony was deductible (and counted as income). The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act eliminated that but only one new divorce settlements executed from 2019 on. If your divorce was executed before this year you still get the deduction (and have to report the payments as income). That said, it appears that this is good only through 2025 (as I recall, the GOP had to build in sunset clauses on a lot of the tax cuts to get it past the ... whatever organization scores such legislation.

https://www.thebalance.com/alimony-and-taxes-3193082

[Kernen]

Because of their role in leaving the disadvantaged spouse disadvantaged and the policy interest in preventing the potentially disadvantaged from being manipulated by threat of becoming disadvantaged.

Alimony predates any sophisticated welfare system, which is a great deal of why alimony and welfare exist side-by-side. I've little doubt that, as welfare improves, alimony will be less and less necessary. But that requires developing the welfare state.

And when you say their role in leaving the spouse disadvantaged you mean "supporting their spouse." This is the behavior that's resulting in the assessment of fees, not abuse or manipulation, it's having provided support in the past.

You don't see how giving up on a marketable skillset to maintain the home might leave you disadvantaged when the home isn't available anymore?

[Saiwania]

I'm not even a woman, but if I somehow suckered one with a good paying job into marrying me (such as if she was a pharmacist). I'd arguably benefit the most from alimony if there were a divorce.

[Des-Bal]

You don't see how giving up on a marketable skillset to maintain the home might leave you disadvantaged when the home isn't available anymore?

And alimony is only available for someone who had a marketable skillset which they allowed to decay explicit because they maintained a home.

[Kernen]

You don't see how giving up on a marketable skillset to maintain the home might leave you disadvantaged when the home isn't available anymore?

And alimony is only available for someone who had a marketable skillset which they allowed to decay explicit because they maintained a home.

With the expectation that the arrangement would continue. Thus leaving them at a disadvantage when the arrangement ends. The balance of equities favors the disadvantaged party, in marriage and in any other arrangement to which equity applies.

[Des-Bal]

With the expectation that the arrangement would continue. Thus leaving them at a disadvantage when the arrangement ends. The balance of equities favors the disadvantaged party, in marriage and in any other arrangement to which equity applies.

So we're limiting alimony exclusively to those parties who did have marketable skills and instead allowed those skills to languish in order to keep a house with the expectation that they would be supported and the arrangement would continue.

What about the person who adopted responsibilities which precluded care of the home with the assumption that the relationship would continue? Presuming the alimony is set perfectly and there is no meaningful difference between supporting their spouse in the marriage and out of it that person is an objectively worse position because there's no longer someone maintaining the home. I'd expect a set-off for the cost of a full-time housekeeper if we're talking about actual equity.

[Ethel mermania]

No, The pro alimony side says a spouse has a right to be compensated for their role in the marriage. If a wife or husband leaves the workforce because the partners decide it's better for the family if only one works, in the event of divorce the stay at home spouse deserves to be compensated for that huge gap in their resume caused by the support they received during the marriage for the non cash services they provided.

Lets be real here, traditionally it is women who get alimony from men- and not the other way around. Only because of automation ending a lot of men's job roles relative to women, has the opposite now come true in the current day. Yes, someone who's been unemployed for a while, has quite an uphill battle to get someone else to hire them, so they can get back into the workforce.

And they deserve to be compensated for it.

[Ors Might]

Here’s the thing. They aren’t their spouse. anymore. They ended that relationship, it’s been terminated. They aren’t receiving any tax benefits or anything like that. They aren’t legally bound together. So why the hell is it their responsibility to support what’s eseentially a stranfer and not the state’s? The state is supposed to take on that burden, that’s the entire damn point of welfare.

Because of their role in leaving the disadvantaged spouse disadvantaged and the policy interest in preventing the potentially disadvantaged from being manipulated by threat of becoming disadvantaged.

Alimony predates any sophisticated welfare system, which is a great deal of why alimony and welfare exist side-by-side. I've little doubt that, as welfare improves, alimony will be less and less necessary. But that requires developing the welfare state.

Unless they had never worked a day on their life prior to the divorce, they’re no more disadvantaged than I was coming out of high school. Hell in all likelihood they’re better off as I’m guessing the majority has worked jobs more impressive than retail at least once. What’s preventing them from finding work that failed to impact an eighteen year old with little work experience?

That’s not a justification for alimony, that’s an excuse for the government not getting off it’s ass.

Too bad, that’s the government’s job. If it doesn’t want to do it’s job, it can’t rightfully claim our taxes.


Here’s the thing. They aren’t their spouse. anymore. They ended that relationship, it’s been terminated. They aren’t receiving any tax benefits or anything like that. They aren’t legally bound together. So why the hell is it their responsibility to support what’s eseentially a stranfer and not the state’s? The state is supposed to take on that burden, that’s the entire damn point of welfare.

Up to this year, alimony was deductible (and counted as income). The Tax Cuts & Jobs Act eliminated that but only one new divorce settlements executed from 2019 on. If your divorce was executed before this year you still get the deduction (and have to report the payments as income). That said, it appears that this is good only through 2025 (as I recall, the GOP had to build in sunset clauses on a lot of the tax cuts to get it past the ... whatever organization scores such legislation.

https://www.thebalance.com/alimony-and-taxes-3193082

Even if it is tax deductible, the government shouldn't be hoisting it’s responsibilities onto individual citizens. If someone needs financial assistance until they can support themselves, the state should step in, not the person’s last partner.

[Ors Might]

Lets be real here, traditionally it is women who get alimony from men- and not the other way around. Only because of automation ending a lot of men's job roles relative to women, has the opposite now come true in the current day. Yes, someone who's been unemployed for a while, has quite an uphill battle to get someone else to hire them, so they can get back into the workforce.

And they deserve to be compensated for it.

Does the spouse that worked to pay the bills and put food on the table deserve to be compensated for the financial support they provided?