# Alimony in 2006? **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [May 17, 2006, 7:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148 "2006-05-17T19:03:20Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 6
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 2:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/101 "2006-05-22T14:19:57Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > That’s not a problem with the law. That’s a problem with the new girlfriend. The new girlfriend is behaving in a rational manner. So the fact that the law can make a man who is divorced an unattractive candidate for a new partner due to large financial reponsibilities, possibly for life, implying that he might stay single for the rest of his life, means that the law is flawed. > [@](#): > > The court would impute income – in other words, force you to pay the same amount of support despite being unemployed. The onus would be on you to prove that you were unemployed through no fault of your own. This works well most of the time when dealing with deadbeats, but can put a lot of stress on workaholics who need a break due to the stress of separation and divorce. > > Support is based on the need for it by one party and the ability to pay for it by the other party. All things being equal, there would be no support. So, if, before the divorce, the man voluntarily quits his job, so that both husband and wife are now without a job, and after the divorce both the husband and wife get 50% of the assets, can the judge force the guy to get a job so that he can pay the ex-wife every month? If yes, why not force the woman to get a job? > [@](#): > > True, but as it stands the law encourages self-sufficiency,which is why for all but long term marriages, where it is too late to become self-supporting, support usually eventually is terminated. This is good. > [@](#): > > Support is triggered by separation (and even then it does not have to be physical separation). If I understand this correctly, if a stay-at-home wife feels her husband is not spending enough money on her, she could theoretically declare to a judge that they are separated, and the judge could force the man to pay her a certain amount of money every month. Is this correct? > [@](#): > > Only if he cuts the grass, takes out the trash, re-plumbs the bathroom, paints the garage, and rebuilds the car’s motor. Daily household chores go both ways, so they are not considered for support. I agree that continuing daily chores for each other is ridiculous, but it shows that the argument “she is entitled to continue having the same lifestyle after the divorce” is ridiculous. > [@](#): > > Also bear in mind that to some degree support is compensatory, for had the recipient not spent years caring for his or her spouse, he or she would most likely have had a better career than he or she presently has. What if the guy wanted to move to New York to advance his career and make more money, but they stayed in L.A. because she didn’t want to move? That would mean he could have had a better career than he presently has. Should he be compensated for that? I don’t think so, and I think no one else would think so. And why? Because he made a **choice** to sacrifice career success for the sake of the family. No one forced him to make that choice, so he is not entitled to any compensation from his wife or anyone else for the money he lost due to his choice. Similarly, women who become stay-at-home wives and never get a job made the \*\*choice \*\*to do so, and should not be compensated for any career impact that choice may have had, just as in the case above of the guy that wanted to move to New York. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 3:03pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/102 "2006-05-22T15:03:27Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > So, if, before the divorce, the man voluntarily quits his job, so that both husband and wife are now without a job, and after the divorce both the husband and wife get 50% of the assets, can the judge force the guy to get a job so that he can pay the ex-wife every month? > > If yes, why not force the woman to get a job? It would depend on the facts. Could be that income would be imputed against the hubby and he would pay support accordingly. Could be that no support would be ordered because the wife was not making efforts at supporting herself. Could be that the wife would be ordered to pay suport to the hubby if she were employable but he not employable. Generally speaking, if a person is a bum, either trying to unreasonably skip out on paying support, or unreasonably trying to claim support, they court will not let them get away with it. > [@Polerius](#): > > If I understand this correctly, if a stay-at-home wife feels her husband is not spending enough money on her, she could theoretically declare to a judge that they are separated, and the judge could force the man to pay her a certain amount of money every month. Is this correct? Certainly she could claim separation, and ask for support, and even ask for possession of the matrimonial home, but that does nto mean that she would succeed in all or even some of her claims. It would depend entirely on the facts.Could be she gets what she asks for. Could be that the hubby ends up receiveing support. could be that neither are awarded anything. > [@Polerius](#): > > I agree that continuing daily chores for each other is ridiculous, but it shows that the argument “she is entitled to continue having the same lifestyle after the divorce” is ridiculous. Neither party is expected to have the same lifestyle following divorce. That is an impossibility if the income pot is the same but the expenses have significantly increased. > [@Polerius](#): > > What if the guy wanted to move to New York to advance his career and make more money, but they stayed in L.A. because she didn’t want to move? > > That would mean he could have had a better career than he presently has. Should he be compensated for that? That would be taken into consideration, but note because he did not move, he did not earn more, and therefore would not pay as much support as he would have had he moved and earned more. > [@Polerius](#): > > Similarly, women who become stay-at-home wives and never get a job made the \*\*choice \*\*to do so, and should not be compensated for any career impact that choice may have had, just as in the case above of the guy that wanted to move to New York. That’s a very challenging issue. The standard answer is that the couple made a choice together for one partner to work outside the home to earn income for the entire family, and for the other to work inside the home to provide care for the entire family, such that the parties are interdependant. This joint decision and interdependancy gives rise to spousal support, despite one party wanting to unilaterally back out of the deal. ---
**Author:** ![mazinger\_z](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/5f9b8f/32.png) [@mazinger\_z](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mazinger_z)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 3:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/103 "2006-05-22T15:34:17Z")
I was going to comment back on 5/18, but someone I rarely agree with, **even sven** and someone else (I’m too lazy to look back) already mentioned why we have alimony. Others have echoed those thought and have pointed out your illogical, irrational biasness (I mean, really, you would complain over a $1?). Now, that you have summarized your position again, I feel compelled to argue. > [@Foxy40](#): > > It seems everytime someone disagrees with my contention about no alimony under the particular circumstance I described, they try to throw something else in the mix. No, there were NO SACRIFICES of opportunity. Yes there were. The ex might have had an opportunity to become self-sufficient, but she got married. And for better or for worse, there was an understanding that she would not have to be. Do you disagree? I’m sure, but **17 years** of a status quo is very compelling evidence to argue against otherwise. > [@Foxy40](#): > > The debate is over a woman while encouraged and often begged to work to help earn a better life, choose not to. She wasn’t asked to stay home, she refused to work and when she did work, made sure she didn’t work for long either by quitting or getting fired. Don’t you _reasonably_ think that this situation should have been discussed beforehand? Obviously, we don’t know the facts, only as you present them. One can only surmize that, like most reasonable marriages, the discussion of spousal support would have been discussed. Finances, in some manner, would have been discussed. Parties would have been aware if they were required to work. If she didn’t have a job before she was married, there is a good tendency to believe that she wouldn’t have a job during the marriage. Some of my little sisters friends are looking forward to being homemakers. Even if we assume that both parties reasonably discussed finances beforehand, the fact that **17 years later** she still hadn’t found consistent employment should have signaled to your ex that he should have broken this off years ago. The longer they stayed together, the tougher it becomes for the ex-wife to be self-sufficient, to expect to be self-sufficient, and the more she is inclined to believe that her husband would take care of her. This seems unreasonable to you? > [@Foxy40](#): > > However, It is about man who handled his responsibilities to support this woman until the circumstances of their marriage became one of so much inequity that it was no longer tolerable to him. This process unfortunately took many years which instead of rewarding, the law seems to be penalizing. You sir, kept supporting her so you need to KEEP supporting her because we said so. Yes, because apparently the first 17 years seemed to be ok. You, sir, obviously did not find a need to do so beforehand, because you would have filed for divorce earlier. > [@Foxy40](#): > > No, you still can’t achieve a better life and keep what you work so hard for because she gets it just like she has always done. You married her so you have her around your neck for all times or until she decides to make a life for herself which she never will as long as she gets that nice tidy check in the mail each month. Now this where I am even more outraged. Is this guy that you considered marrying to be such a loser that he can no longer make a better life for himself? Why don’t you just use that excuse rather than trump up some hostility towards his ex? Most states, at least what I was taught in Family Law, will make the husband carry his alimony burden up to the lifestyle they both had when married. But, if the husband were then to improve himself after the marriage dissolution, then he will reap the benefits himself. The only real issue is if kids were involved, then his kids would share in his newly acquired wealth. ---
**Author:** ![Autumn\_Almanac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d26b3c/32.png) [@Autumn\_Almanac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autumn_Almanac)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/104 "2006-05-22T15:46:10Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > Similarly, women who become stay-at-home wives and never get a job made the \*\*choice \*\*to do so, and should not be compensated for any career impact that choice may have had I think we can assume that in most cases, this choice is not made unilaterally. It could be that the wife was quite willing to continue her career, but the husband preferred that she be a homemaker, so that’s what they mutually decided. I agree with the sentiment that married people should have a plan to support themselves in the event of divorce/death/etc. What I don’t understand is the view that partners in a marriage should be completely self-suffcient and financially independent of one another. That’s just not how marriage works. ---
**Author:** ![even\_sven](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/dfb087/32.png) [@even\_sven](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/even_sven)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 5:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/105 "2006-05-22T17:08:03Z")
[QUOTE. The debate is over a woman while encouraged and often begged to work to help earn a better life, choose not to. She wasn’t asked to stay home, she refused to work and when she did work, made sure she didn’t work for long either by quitting or getting fired. It is about man who handled his responsibilities to support this woman until the circumstances of their marriage became one of so much inequity that it was no longer tolerable to him. This process unfortunately took many years which instead of rewarding, the law seems to be penalizing. [/QUOTE] Would you spend 17 years “ecouraging and often begging” a non-working son or daughter to get a job, while supporting them in your home? Would that be “doing the right thing” and “handling your responsibilities” by supporting a non-working son or daughter for 17 years? Or would you agree that supporting a non-working adult for 17 years is pretty much screwing their life options, and nobody in their right mind would do that unless they planned to support them for life? I think you are eager to believe that your beau had no doing in his ex-wife’s lack of work, but that just isn’t possible. He was a complicit and consentual party in this, and whatever happened happened in part because he wanted it to. ---
**Author:** ![Foxy40](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Foxy40](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foxy40)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 7:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/106 "2006-05-22T19:04:10Z")
> [@even sven](#): > > I think you are eager to believe that your beau had no doing in his ex-wife’s lack of work, but that just isn’t possible. He was a complicit and consentual party in this, and whatever happened happened in part because he wanted it to. Absolutely not. My “beau” takes full responsibility for putting up with this nonsense for years rather than rock the boat and cause strife. He had always assumed he would be made to pay while I couldn’t see how in 2006 this would be possible. How wrong I was. I have been able to review and think about many different points of view from this debate. Basically, I guess I am in total shock that many if not most of the people here actually insist support is totally fair and responsible for at least a specific amount of time no matter what the cirumstances of the break up of the marriage. Certainly it won’t change my mind about what is right and fair but more, what I would consent to put up with in a future long term relationship. It also makes me regret slightly that I didn’t choose a different life of being supported and dependent because obviously in this society, it definitely pays off regardless of my contribution to the marriage as a partner. Perhaps I missed that home economics class while I was sitting in Physics. “Gals, find yourself a rich husband because even though this isn’t the 1950s, the law and public opinion are on your side so get what you can out of him because he’ll be saddled with you for life. Even better, if you can keep it together for 15 years, you can get yourself a good looking stud and still get a paycheck each and every month!” :smack: ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 7:21pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/107 "2006-05-22T19:21:34Z")
> [@Foxy40](#): > > “Gals, find yourself a rich husband because even though this isn’t the 1950s, the law and public opinion are on your side so get what you can out of him because he’ll be saddled with you for life. Even better, if you can keep it together for 15 years, you can get yourself a good looking stud and still get a paycheck each and every month!” :smack: “And not only that, people will blame _him_ for allowing you to not get a job for 15 years and stay at home sitting on your lazy behind.” ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 7:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/108 "2006-05-22T19:28:24Z")
> [@wm--](#): > > I agree with the sentiment that married people should have a plan to support themselves in the event of divorce/death/etc. I agree with this. With 50% of marriages ending in divorce, it is illogical to be in a situation where a divorce will leave you unable to earn enough money to live. > [@](#): > > What I don’t understand is the view that partners in a marriage should be completely self-suffcient and financially independent of one another. I don’t think anyone is saying this. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/109 "2006-05-22T19:33:37Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > That’s a very challenging issue. The standard answer is that the couple made a choice together for one partner to work outside the home to earn income for the entire family, and for the other to work inside the home to provide care for the entire family, such that the parties are interdependant. This joint decision and interdependancy gives rise to spousal support, despite one party wanting to unilaterally back out of the deal. I understand the ‘interdependancy’ argument. I was addressing another argument you made, namely: > [@](#): > > Also bear in mind that to some degree support is compensatory, for had the recipient not spent years caring for his or her spouse, he or she would most likely have had a better career than he or she presently has. That is, you claimed that alimony is some sort of compenation for missing out on a better career, due to the sacrifices made for the family. And what I’m saying in response to that is that often husbands of stay-at-home wives also miss out on a better career due to the sacrifices made for the family. Should they be compensated for it after the divorce? No! So, while the ‘interdependancy’ argument may have some merit, I think that the ‘compensation’ argument is meritless. ---
**Author:** ![Autumn\_Almanac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d26b3c/32.png) [@Autumn\_Almanac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autumn_Almanac)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 7:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/110 "2006-05-22T19:55:02Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > I don’t think anyone is saying this. **Foxy40** certainly is, and I interpreted your comments as agreeing. Sorry if that wasn’t the case. Also, the 50% divorce rate is a [myth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce) based on faulty comparisons (cite is Wikipedia, but you can Google various other articles with the same conclusions). A better estimate is around 30%. Still troubling, but not quite as dire as a straight coin flip. ---
**Author:** ![Polerius](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/p/d78d45/32.png) [@Polerius](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Polerius)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 8:23pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/111 "2006-05-22T20:23:31Z")
> [@wm--](#): > > **Foxy40** certainly is, and I interpreted your comments as agreeing. Sorry if that wasn’t the case. > > Also, the 50% divorce rate is a [myth](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Divorce) based on faulty comparisons The [Master](http://www.straightdope.com/columns/030124.html) says otherwise: > [@Cecil](#): > > Half of U.S. marriages haven’t ended in divorce yet. But we’re definitely headed in that direction. > > Some people are in denial about this. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/112 "2006-05-22T20:28:56Z")
> [@Polerius](#): > > So, while the ‘interdependancy’ argument may have some merit, I think that the ‘compensation’ argument is meritless. The importance of compensatory support seems to be declining in my jurisdiction. It is no longer properly claimed as a separate head of damages (although in fact it is still claimed – but that is more of a pleading drafting issue). It is, however, still considered as one of a number of factors that goes to quantum and duration. Again, it would depend on the underlying facts. If the recipient had dropped out high school and was working at a low end job for a few years prior to meeting her spouse, then the compensatory factor would be zip. If a couple of top university grads married, and agreed together that one would work and the other would stay at home and raise children, then compensation would be a factor. As CrazyCatLady clearly put it in a thread on prenups: [http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=285479&highlight=pre-nup](http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=285479&highlight=pre-nup) > [@CrazyCatLady](#): > > The scenario where a woman takes care of her husband all through college, med school, and residency, then gets dumped without a pot to piss in when she starts getting wrinkly, while he enjoys a fabulously luxurious lifestyle with his new siliconed, collagened, bleached 23yo trophy wife is a cliche. But it didn’t become a cliche in a vaccuum, did it? The problem is that people live together or get married without thoroughly reviewing such issues, and without drafting a coahb or marriage agreement that sets out what the parties intend. Unfortunately, a lot of people are offended at the thought of making one and simply refuse to consider the posibility of their relationship failing, and a lot of would-be homemakers do not realize that a prenup can be drafted to ensure support – not just to preclude support (for examples of such negativity, see the above cited thread on prenups). I submit that folks should know what the are getting into when they shack up or marry, and draft a prenup accordingly, so that they get something on their own terms, rather than the default terms of the government. Through a prenup, the parties would usually not get stuck having to abide by rules that they believe are unfair. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 8:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/113 "2006-05-22T20:42:28Z")
Statistics Canada had a look at the marriage and divorce rates, and concluded that folks who divorce once are more likely to divorce twice. This means that if you were to exclude the folks that are into multiple divorces, the divorce rate is not as high as it would appear. Statistics Canada also found that most people who marry eventually find a spouse that they stay married to. This means that even people who divorce one or more times are likely to eventually marry the right person and have a lasting marriage. Sorry, but I have no recollection as to which Statistic Canada report the above was in, but if you dig about long enough, you can find it. With respect to the above, I conclude that marriage as an institution is alive and well, despite it often taking a few tries for some people to get it right. At the same time, the frequency of divorce is significant, so anyone marrying should look into drafting a prenup/marriage contract, despite it not being the most romantic thing to do. To fail to do so is ignoring the odds. ---
**Author:** ![Carnacki](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/b5e925/32.png) [@Carnacki](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Carnacki)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 10:10pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/114 "2006-05-22T22:10:36Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > Statistics Canada also found that most people who marry eventually find a spouse that they stay married to. > > This means that even people who divorce one or more times are likely to eventually marry the right person and have a lasting marriage. There must be something missing from this statistic, such as a definition of “lasting marriage”. Either that, or it means simply that most people that marry die married. ---
**Author:** ![Foxy40](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Foxy40](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foxy40)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 10:15pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/115 "2006-05-22T22:15:11Z")
[QUOTE=wm–] **Foxy40** certainly is, and I interpreted your comments as agreeing. Sorry if that wasn’t the case.QUOTE] Huh? I never wrote finances should be independent during a marriage. My point is that financial dependency should end when the marriage ends. What two people agree upon during the course of their marriage would be their contract and obligation as long as the contract continues. ---
**Author:** ![Foxy40](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Foxy40](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foxy40)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 10:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/116 "2006-05-22T22:25:44Z")
> [@Muffin](#): > > The importance of compensatory support seems to be declining in my jurisdiction. It is no longer properly claimed as a separate head of damages (although in fact it is still claimed – but that is more of a pleading drafting issue). It is, however, still considered as one of a number of factors that goes to quantum and duration. Again, it would depend on the underlying facts. Your examples are excellent ones of when support would be appropriate. Unfortunately, in CA it seems that the only two things that are taken into consideration is the length of marriage and the ability to support. If other things were taken into consideration, I would not have started this thread. By not living up to the verbal “contract” of an obligation to work until children are born and the spouse did not honor that contract, she is in fact rewarded. If she had indeed honored her part of the bargain, she would not receive support because she wouldn’t need it. It is a reward for laziness to one spouse and a penalty to the hardworking other spouse. ---
**Author:** ![Muffin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/muffin/32/4341_2.png) [@Muffin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Muffin)\ **Post date:** [May 22, 2006, 11:44pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/117 "2006-05-22T23:44:05Z")
> [@KidScruffy](#): > > There must be something missing from this statistic, such as a definition of “lasting marriage”. Either that, or it means simply that most people that marry die married. Die married. ---
**Author:** ![Autumn\_Almanac](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/a/d26b3c/32.png) [@Autumn\_Almanac](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Autumn_Almanac)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2006, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/118 "2006-05-23T01:12:56Z")
> [@Foxy40](#): > > I never wrote finances should be independent during a marriage. My point is that financial dependency should end when the marriage ends. How does that work though? How can a person be financially independent and self-sufficient on day one post-divorce if they haven’t been stashing money away privately while they were married? ---
**Author:** ![Foxy40](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/f/a9a28c/32.png) [@Foxy40](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Foxy40)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2006, 10:25am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/119 "2006-05-23T10:25:46Z")
> [@wm--](#): > > How does that work though? How can a person be financially independent and self-sufficient on day one post-divorce if they haven’t been stashing money away privately while they were married? What ever the two have built together throughout the marriage is split. If there is nothing, neither receives. Money is pooled throughout the marriage if that is agreed upon which would make each financially dependent as long as the marriage continues. When the marriage is over, each party then becomes independent and must support themselves with their own skills and ambition thus living the lifestyle they now earn, not sharing in one of another. Children are given support if applicable so they may live as close to their old lifestyle as possible keeping in mind that neither spouse will be able to either. The custodial spouse benefits from the child support directly anyway, it can not be avoided. If there is a sacrifice made by one spouse, such as giving up on education or career, which can be proven, that is taken into consideration to allow for a short term compensation agreement such as a greater share of the assets or if none exists, a temporary supplement such as tuition reimbursement. This would assure the financially dependent spouse uses the money towards becoming independent. One spouse acting as a mother to the mutual preschool child(ren) would be the only exception where the above would apply. ---
**Author:** ![Kimstu](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/k/ecd19e/32.png) [@Kimstu](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kimstu)\ **Post date:** [May 23, 2006, 12:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148/120 "2006-05-23T12:52:21Z")
> [@Foxy40](#): > > Certainly it won’t change my mind about what is right and fair but more, what I would consent to put up with in a future long term relationship. You know, then I’m kind of wondering why you actually bothered to start this thread. You have been insisting ever since your OP that your opinion is correct and nothing is going to change your mind on any part of this issue. Okay, so why bother arguing about it in the first place? Did you just come here to find people who agree with you and scold those who don’t? > [@Foxy40](#): > > It also makes me regret slightly that I didn’t choose a different life of being supported and dependent because obviously in this society, it definitely pays off regardless of my contribution to the marriage as a partner. Geez, **Foxy** , you seem to have some absolutely carcinogenic levels of spite and bitterness going on here. First you dump a man you claim to dearly love simply because you can’t bear the thought of having to sacrifice part of his income to a woman you feel is unworthy of support. Now you feel resentful because some people are defending the concept of alimony as being still potentially relevant even in modern gender-equal marriages, and you’re even tempted to wish that you were receiving alimony yourself, **even at the cost of being nothing but a useless and unfulfilled parasite for decades of an unsatisfactory marrriage.** Where’s the pride? Where’s the magnanimity? Where’s the generosity of spirit that is able to say “I’ve chosen the higher path of independence and self-reliance, and I don’t regret it even if other paths might have provided me with a superficially easier life in some respects. I feel sorry for weaker and more unprincipled people who take advantage of the system to obtain benefits they haven’t earned, but I refuse to allow resentment or envy of them to embitter my life.” More generally: This discussion is getting tangled up between morality and legality in ways that remind me of earlier GD discussions about laws forcing men to pay child support for children they didn’t want to conceive. Yes, I think we’re all agreed that it’s not ethical for a lazy woman to expect a husband or ex-husband to support her when she knows he doesn’t want to. Just as we’re all agreed that it’s not ethical for an unscrupulous woman to con a man into fathering or supporting a child when she knows he doesn’t want to. But the core issue here is not about personal morality, but about the **societal** morality that forms the basis of law. The law can demand that people pay alimony or child support even to lazy or unscrupulous partners, **not** because the law specifically wants to reward laziness or unscrupulousness, but because it’s focusing on the more fundamental problem of keeping people out of the gutter. Children and unemployed ex-spouses are, at least temporarily, not self-supporting. So the law levies contributions to help support them, from the people who **are** self-supporting and who bear some responsibility for getting them into this situation. Yes, sometimes the supporting people have been treated very dishonestly or unfairly by individuals deliberately exploiting this system for their own purposes, and that’s a real shame. But the law’s not about rewarding or punishing the specific ethical behavior of each unique individual. The law’s about the basic principle of ensuring some kind of support for the non-self-supporting. The people who can most reasonably be expected to provide that support are the people who have at least some responsibility for causing the situation in the first place. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148.md?page=5) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/alimony-in-2006/357148.md?page=7)