Found this article at the *front page* of the local news website

[noob-leech]

Home > News > GTA

Divorce now, while you can still can

With homes and stocks worth less, couples who divorce now can avoid a big settlement later

Katie Daubs

Staff Reporter

November 20, 2009

[link=http://www.thestar.com/printarticle/728452]article link[/link]

[Inspired_Neurosis]

The government shouldn't have anything to do with the institution of marriage anyways. While I totally favour child support, for obvious reasons, alimony payments shouldn't even exist. People willingly chose whether or not to make other sacrifices as a consequence of their relationships. You shouldn't have any entitlements from someone else just because you used to fuck them.

[SashaSue]

Alimony payments or no, couples still have to evaluate and divide their assets.

On the larger point though, IN, I think you and I actually almost agree. The government should get out of the marriage business. Though I'd say it should instead offer civil unions to all.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Alimony payments or no, couples still have to evaluate and divide their assets.

On the larger point though, IN, I think you and I actually almost agree. The government should get out of the marriage business. Though I'd say it should instead offer civil unions to all.

Yipper. That all sounds about right to me, depending upon what benefits these "civil unions" entail.

[r.mcmurphy]

if it were not a legal institution there would be no enforcement of child support among other things important to a child's welfare. i personally couldn't give a fig but a kid that comes up scuffling for money ain't gonna have much of a shot at being a 'good' citizen. in my pea brain's view there is a place for alimony as well in certain well defined cases.

in other words fuck anarchy!

[Inspired_Neurosis]

if it were not a legal institution there would be no enforcement of child support among other things important to a child's welfare. i personally couldn't give a fig but a kid that comes up scuffling for money ain't gonna have much of a shot at being a 'good' citizen. in my pea brain's view there is a place for alimony as well in certain well defined cases.

in other words fuck anarchy!

Child support is enforced even if the couple was never married, so no, it's not a requirement. There's no reason to reduce relationships to paperwork, which is what marriage does.

The only reasons that "marriage" exists:

-To make the government's job in investigating child support, alimony, and assorted benefit cases easier.

-Retarded religious morality. (Which I know that you aren't a fan of either)

-Superficial morons don't really love each other in any meaningful way, so they need to have a ceremony and certificate in order to compensate. (Note: this doesn't apply to everyone's marriage, but it certainly perpetuates the social normality of marriage.)

Also, I'm not an anarchist, but they get a bad rap. Better anarchy than authoritarianism, I say.

[SashaSue]

Alimony payments or no, couples still have to evaluate and divide their assets.

On the larger point though, IN, I think you and I actually almost agree. The government should get out of the marriage business. Though I'd say it should instead offer civil unions to all.

Yipper. That all sounds about right to me, depending upon what benefits these "civil unions" entail.

Most of the civil benefits currently given to marriage. Shared health benefits, recognition for immigration purposes, income tax benefits, things like that.

[olga]

Then there are the outdated old farts like me who got married (in front of a judge, not in a church) because it was our way of pledging our lives and loyalty to each other, and announcing to our friends and acquaintances that we intended to stick together through thick and thin.

It seemed like an adventure at the time, and also like stepping off a cliff, but there is no lovelier relationship than a committed, happy marriage. I'm sorry for those of you who haven't had the pleasure of experiencing it.

And IN can be against alimony, but he obviously isn't a 52-year-old woman with no education who gets dumped by her husband for a 25-year-old. She's supposed to re-enter the workforce after 32 years out of it and get a job and support herself after helping to put him through college and then supporting him in his career for 32 years? She has no payments into Social Security, no job skills, no resume. Just 32 years of bearing and raising his children, cleaning his house, wiping up cat vomit, washing his clothes, doing the errands and shopping and cooking, and just generally being his cook, maid, housekeeper, personal assistant, bookkeeper, job coach, lover, friend and the mother of his children.

Sorry, young man----she wasn't just "fucking" him. Real marriage is a whole lot more than that.

But I forget. You are very young and haven't experienced much of the world yet. Please grow up and learn a little bit about these matters before you expound your very juvenile and uninformed opinions.

olga

[Inspired_Neurosis]

Then there are the outdated old farts like me who got married (in front of a judge, not in a church) because it was our way of pledging our lives and loyalty to each other, and announcing to our friends and acquaintances that we intended to stick together through thick and thin.

It seemed like an adventure at the time, and also like stepping off a cliff, but there is no lovelier relationship than a committed, happy marriage. I'm sorry for those of you who haven't had the pleasure of experiencing it.

And IN can be against alimony, but he obviously isn't a 52-year-old woman with no education who gets dumped by her husband for a 25-year-old. She's supposed to re-enter the workforce after 32 years out of it and get a job and support herself after helping to put him through college and then supporting him in his career for 32 years? She has no payments into Social Security, no job skills, no resume. Just 32 years of bearing and raising his children, cleaning his house, wiping up cat vomit, washing his clothes, doing the errands and shopping and cooking, and just generally being his cook, maid, housekeeper, personal assistant, bookkeeper, job coach, lover, friend and the mother of his children.

Sorry, young man----she wasn't just "fucking" him. Real marriage is a whole lot more than that.

But I forget. You are very young and haven't experienced much of the world yet. Please grow up and learn a little bit about these matters before you expound your very juvenile and uninformed opinions.

olga

By accusing me of being "uninformed," you imply that I haven't considered the kind of scenario that you describe. On the contrary--I considered and rejected it as justification for alimony.

If we're going to use personal anecdotes and appeal to emotion here, I will mention that I too have been abused, neglected, and betrayed by a variety of people, many of whom(unlike your situation) I made no choice to associate myself with. This has impacted me in many ways, and salary prospects, though undoubtedly damaged, are the least of my concerns. I wouldn't think, for a second, of demanding any monetary compensation from any of the people in question, because it is a tremendous insult to claim that all of this is measurable in that way.

If we're going to follow your logic, how far do you want to extend such a culture of compensation? Human interaction tends to impact our lives, for good or bad. In a relationship, people choose to support each other in numerous ways. There is no coercion, and no agreement that one party is obliged to compensate the other for their time. This isn't stuff that can be quantified, nor should be quantified. If you aren't legally obligated to stay home and raise children, you shouldn't be legally entitled to money for doing so. I know many couples who both have careers, and who split the child care burden. And being a mother and being educated are only mutually exclusive if you make them so. We all make choices in life. You yourself claimed that this arrangement was rewarding in many ways before you went on to advocate vengeance for the negative consequences.

Although I'm sorry that you really got the shit end of the stick there. Your ex really does sound like a douchebag. You have my sympathies, if not my agreement on how the situation should be rectified. He should be morally, but not legally, compelled to repay you.

[lysergia]

Then there are the outdated old farts like me who got married (in front of a judge, not in a church) because it was our way of pledging our lives and loyalty to each other, and announcing to our friends and acquaintances that we intended to stick together through thick and thin.

It seemed like an adventure at the time, and also like stepping off a cliff, but there is no lovelier relationship than a committed, happy marriage. I'm sorry for those of you who haven't had the pleasure of experiencing it.

And IN can be against alimony, but he obviously isn't a 52-year-old woman with no education who gets dumped by her husband for a 25-year-old. She's supposed to re-enter the workforce after 32 years out of it and get a job and support herself after helping to put him through college and then supporting him in his career for 32 years? She has no payments into Social Security, no job skills, no resume. Just 32 years of bearing and raising his children, cleaning his house, wiping up cat vomit, washing his clothes, doing the errands and shopping and cooking, and just generally being his cook, maid, housekeeper, personal assistant, bookkeeper, job coach, lover, friend and the mother of his children.

Sorry, young man----she wasn't just "fucking" him. Real marriage is a whole lot more than that.

But I forget. You are very young and haven't experienced much of the world yet. Please grow up and learn a little bit about these matters before you expound your very juvenile and uninformed opinions.

olga

thank you olga. this really needed to be said.

[Inspired_Neurosis]

thank you olga. this really needed to be said.

Yes, because ad hominems still constitute brilliance around here so long as I'm the target. I wonder what would happen if I accused Olga of ignorance...but whatever.

This is all good knockabout stuff, but it doesn't counter the fact that alimony law is premised on an anachronistic belief that women aren't capable and shouldn't have careers. Frankly, it's more sexist towards women than men. A lot of people might not like this assessment, but it's the kind of thing that needs to be expressed if anything is ever going to change.

[graduation day]

Wow I had to actually look up "Alimony" on Wikipedia, because I've never heard of it... We don't have anything like that in my country. We don't have a lot of homemakers either, and I guess those two are related like Olga said. Now that 'm reading about it, i really don't see how this is useful to a society.

I mean, from an economic perspective, you'd want the largest workforce possible, so that more people would pay taxes and improve the nation's economy. And from a humanitarian perspective, I can't see how you could justify that two people who no longer want to be married should have to depend on each other like that.

Please excuse my ignorance, if I've misunderstood something about what alimony is, this is new to me...

I'm guessing Alimony was made up to protect female homemakers who were left by their husbands. But protect them from what? Working? In Olga's example with the 52-year old with no education or job experience, she should be on the dole and should be getting help by the authorities to get a job.

[beetle]

Wow I had to actually look up "Alimony" on Wikipedia, because I've never heard of it... We don't have anything like that in my country. We don't have a lot of homemakers either, and I guess those two are related like Olga said. Now that 'm reading about it, i really don't see how this is useful to a society.

I mean, from an economic perspective, you'd want the largest workforce possible, so that more people would pay taxes and improve the nation's economy. And from a humanitarian perspective, I can't see how you could justify that two people who no longer want to be married should have to depend on each other like that.

Please excuse my ignorance, if I've misunderstood something about what alimony is, this is new to me...

I'm guessing Alimony was made up to protect female homemakers who were left by their husbands. But protect them from what? Working? In Olga's example with the 52-year old with no education or job experience, she should be on the dole and should be getting help by the authorities to get a job.

Sometimes in a marriage, the couple agrees that the woman will quit her job and become a homemaker and stay at home mother. That's a choice they made together. It takes the woman out of the workforce for a long time and she loses skills and experience in whatever field it was she used to work in. Then if there's a divorce, she can't get back into the workplace at a level she "should" be at for her age. I believe when couples make these decisions and then get divorced, in some circumstances alimony is warranted.

[graduation day]

Sometimes in a marriage, the couple agrees that the woman will quit her job and become a homemaker and stay at home mother. That's a choice they made together. It takes the woman out of the workforce for a long time and she loses skills and experience in whatever field it was she used to work in. Then if there's a divorce, she can't get back into the workplace at a level she "should" be at for her age. I believe when couples make these decisions and then get divorced, in some circumstances alimony is warranted.

Well in that case, the couple should make their own legal document which ensures the one who's leaving their job that they can get the alimony. It shouldn't be an obligation established by law.

[beetle]

Sometimes in a marriage, the couple agrees that the woman will quit her job and become a homemaker and stay at home mother. That's a choice they made together. It takes the woman out of the workforce for a long time and she loses skills and experience in whatever field it was she used to work in. Then if there's a divorce, she can't get back into the workplace at a level she "should" be at for her age. I believe when couples make these decisions and then get divorced, in some circumstances alimony is warranted.

Well in that case, the couple should make their own legal document which ensures the one who's leaving their job that they can get the alimony. It shouldn't be an obligation established by law.

I believe there already is a contractual remedy to this. It's called the prenuptial agreement.

And if you think about it, the government doesn't want these divorced homemakers on the dole so that's probably the reason for alimony.

[rowen]

And if you think about it, the government doesn't want these divorced homemakers on the dole so that's probably the reason for alimony.

Exactly. Alimony exists to keep women in the scenario that olga described out of poverty. Less people in the system, the better (per the government - I'm not going to argue about whether or not we should have a system).

[Stickler]

That's a depressing article. I seriously doubt the existence of more than a handful of people who are coldblooded enough to worry about the spousal share increasing when thinking about terminating their marriages.

Then again, I'm not from that tax bracket, aw-whaw, thankyaverymuch.

"Dole" in the U.S., isn't really enough to live on. It varies from state to state. My state gives nothing to able-bodied people other than a capped number of food stamps. Minimum wage isn't enough to live on either unless you start popping speed and working 80 hours a week, as some people I've worked with do.

History lesson time:

Things already have changed greatly for women. When my mom-in-law was coming up, her scholarship was taken away from her because she got married.

Women who graduated high school in the forties, fifties, and sixties were actively discriminated against. All those Rosie-The-Riveter types that helped win WW2? as soon as the troops came home they were stealing men's jobs, and most either left voluntarily or got fired. ( My wife's grandma was a lucky exception).

Women's Duty was considered to be to stay home and care for children. And when women did go to work, they were blatantly paid less than a man, even if doing the same job, because they "weren't supporting a family." Or even if they were.

Letting Mom stay home has become a luxury of sorts. There aren't a lot of people in my generation who got to grow up in a family intact and well-off enough to let Mom stay home, so alimony doesn't seem to make as much sense anymore. However, If a 50-year-old woman has spent twenty years in unpaid maid and childcare duties for a rich man, who then tosses her over for a plasticized playboy bunny, she really ought to get at least some compensation.

Although I can't help but think that half of everything he owns is probably a sizeable chunk in many cases.

And remember, she's not only going to have to face no work history, but age and gender-based discrimination.

(men are distinguished, women are old hags:brooding:)

IN, you view the world in a very black-and-white way, which may or may not reflect reality.

[beetle]

That's a depressing article. I seriously doubt the existence of more than a handful of people who are coldblooded enough to worry about the spousal share increasing when thinking about terminating their marriages.

Then again, I'm not from that tax bracket, aw-whaw, thankyaverymuch.

"Dole" in the U.S., isn't really enough to live on. It varies from state to state. My state gives nothing to able-bodied people other than a capped number of food stamps. Minimum wage isn't enough to live on either unless you start popping speed and working 80 hours a week, as some people I've worked with do.

History lesson time:

Things already have changed greatly for women. When my mom-in-law was coming up, her scholarship was taken away from her because she got married.

Women who graduated high school in the forties, fifties, and sixties were actively discriminated against. All those Rosie-The-Riveter types that helped win WW2? as soon as the troops came home they were stealing men's jobs, and most either left voluntarily or got fired. ( My wife's grandma was a lucky exception).

Women's Duty was considered to be to stay home and care for children. And when women did go to work, they were blatantly paid less than a man, even if doing the same job, because they "weren't supporting a family." Or even if they were.

Letting Mom stay home has become a luxury of sorts. There aren't a lot of people in my generation who got to grow up in a family intact and well-off enough to let Mom stay home, so alimony doesn't seem to make as much sense anymore. However, If a 50-year-old woman has spent twenty years in unpaid maid and childcare duties for a rich man, who then tosses her over for a plasticized playboy bunny, she really ought to get at least some compensation.

Although I can't help but think that half of everything he owns is probably a sizeable chunk in many cases.

And remember, she's not only going to have to face no work history, but age and gender-based discrimination.

(men are distinguished, women are old hags:brooding:)

IN, you view the world in a very black-and-white way, which may or may not reflect reality.

Women STILL get paid roughly 25% less than a man doing the same work. I thought we'd gotten past that in this country but at my last job I found out different.

I'll try to make a long story short...

A new employee in the accounting dept. put some files on the public network drive that she shouldn't have. I found those files while looking for some forms that were normally housed on that drive.

Those files showed me the salary of everyone in the office from the big wigs down to the little guy. And in every single category...management, engineer, technician, office staff, etc...the women made 25% less than the men. I mean the discrepancy was stark.

I found out that I was making 25% less than the male technicians. They were all within a couple thousand dollars of each other and then there I was, the only female technician...making 25% less. Less than even a younger tech with less experience but he was a he. Get it. I wanted to puke but instead notified HR that they needed to get the sensitive info off the public drive and then a few days later I let them know they needed to be paying me more. And they did.

I know this isn't all that relevant to the discussion but just wanted to add my two cents on the wage disparity between men and women. It's still out there.

[r.mcmurphy]

Beetle busts a move-----excellent---equity!

[graduation day]

Women STILL get paid roughly 25% less than a man doing the same work. I thought we'd gotten past that in this country but at my last job I found out different.

I'll try to make a long story short...

A new employee in the accounting dept. put some files on the public network drive that she shouldn't have. I found those files while looking for some forms that were normally housed on that drive.

Those files showed me the salary of everyone in the office from the big wigs down to the little guy. And in every single category...management, engineer, technician, office staff, etc...the women made 25% less than the men. I mean the discrepancy was stark.

I found out that I was making 25% less than the male technicians. They were all within a couple thousand dollars of each other and then there I was, the only female technician...making 25% less. Less than even a younger tech with less experience but he was a he. Get it. I wanted to puke but instead notified HR that they needed to get the sensitive info off the public drive and then a few days later I let them know they needed to be paying me more. And they did.

I know this isn't all that relevant to the discussion but just wanted to add my two cents on the wage disparity between men and women. It's still out there.

Doesn't surpirse me at all. We are very far from equality between the genders. My country ranks 7th in the World Economic Forum’s Global Gender Gap Index, and we are still so very far from any real economic equality.

Good for you for getting the salary you sould get!

[nalgas]

Beetle busts a move-----excellent---equity!

Arbitrary alliteration! Awesome!

[Stickler]

i will not pick on I_N i will not pick on I_N i will not pick on I_N i will not pick on I_N

[crtclms]

Community Property states make this a lot more simple, actually. Women get half of the "marital estate," which includes, for instance, half of signing bonuses (a big deal in CA, due to all of the professional athletes, but also bankers, and corporate lawyers), %s of pensions, half of time shares, or anything else acquired in the duration of the marriage. The underlying legal principle is that a married couple has formed a contractual economic partnership. That aspect of marriage is as old as the hills. In CP states, any assets acquired during the marriage, either by directly being paid the wages, or by offering support to the wage earner, are owned by the partnership. Women still often get screwed, most attorneys are still male (although this is changing). I beg my female friends not to mediate their divorces, even though I was a kick-ass mediator. Women want to make nice, and give in too easily. I am of the "Get the biggest, meanest divorce attorney you can find" school.

Right now is a terrible time to get divorced if you live in a Community Property state. Unless you plan on living together with your ex-spouse in that house you bought that is now upside down in equity.

That said, I have been exceedingly happy the last 9 years and 10 months of my life since I met my husband. You could have knocked me over with a stick when I realized I wanted to spend the rest of my life with someone; I was *extremely* skeptical of marriage, and had always assumed it was not for me.

Plus, I was "the straight girl" who was active in all the GLBT organizations in Pittsburgh (civil rights are kind of a big deal to me). I certainly did not think I would marry if it was not legal for my friends. But they *pushed* me to marry when Jason proposed (he was so romantic, "Hey, why don't we just get married?" roflol). They said "Why would we want to deny you something that we are working so hard to get?"

I do think the church should stay out of it, and that the government should just perform Civil Unions, regardless of the respective genders of the couple. I was married by a judge, but he was a long time family friend. Not that I would have married in a religious ceremony, we are both atheists, and in fact, told the judge to please not mention G-d if he wanted to speak for a few minutes (he has known me since I was 9).