politics
Welcome to the discussion of US Politics!
Rules:
- Post only links to articles, Title must fairly describe link contents. If your title differs from the site’s, it should only be to add context or be more descriptive. Do not post entire articles in the body or in the comments.
Links must be to the original source, not an aggregator like Google Amp, MSN, or Yahoo.
Example:
- Articles must be relevant to politics. Links must be to quality and original content. Articles should be worth reading. Clickbait, stub articles, and rehosted or stolen content are not allowed. Check your source for Reliability and Bias here.
- Be civil, No violations of TOS. It’s OK to say the subject of an article is behaving like a (pejorative, pejorative). It’s NOT OK to say another USER is (pejorative). Strong language is fine, just not directed at other members. Engage in good-faith and with respect! This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban.
- No memes, trolling, or low-effort comments. Reposts, misinformation, off-topic, trolling, or offensive. Similarly, if you see posts along these lines, do not engage. Report them, block them, and live a happier life than they do. We see too many slapfights that boil down to "Mom! He's bugging me!" and "I'm not touching you!" Going forward, slapfights will result in removed comments and temp bans to cool off.
- Vote based on comment quality, not agreement. This community aims to foster discussion; please reward people for putting effort into articulating their viewpoint, even if you disagree with it.
- No hate speech, slurs, celebrating death, advocating violence, or abusive language. This will result in a ban. Usernames containing racist, or inappropriate slurs will be banned without warning
We ask that the users report any comment or post that violate the rules, to use critical thinking when reading, posting or commenting. Users that post off-topic spam, advocate violence, have multiple comments or posts removed, weaponize reports or violate the code of conduct will be banned.
All posts and comments will be reviewed on a case-by-case basis. This means that some content that violates the rules may be allowed, while other content that does not violate the rules may be removed. The moderators retain the right to remove any content and ban users.
That's all the rules!
Civic Links
• Congressional Awards Program
• Library of Congress Legislative Resources
• U.S. House of Representatives
Partnered Communities:
• News
view the rest of the comments
As much as I hate this schmuck, the proposed law isn't bad on the surface. I'd be furious if I had to work past retirement to keep supporting an ex wife whom I divorced decades prior. Like I get the intent of alimony, but to me it seems quite a bit outdated when most working households have both adults having their own careers. And if a couple divorces, why should the breadwinner have to pay to maintain the other's lifestyle instead of a stipend until the other gets on their feet. I'd be raging if I was busting my ass to keep making money, and her insta feed is nothing but her going shopping and having spa days on my dime.
I don't think you do. If both people have the same level of income, there's no alimony. Alimony is meant to allow someone who has been a house spouse for years (decades) to think about divorce, so they are not trapped by finances.
How easy do you think it is to get a job after working part time (or not working) for 20 years? Older with no recent experience is not going to get you any jobs.
Wich is precisely the point of this sham of a law. I think Republicans know that they are decades away from revoking no-fault divorce, but they can erode a woman's ability to leave an unhappy marriage. This, abortion bans, school choice, it's all about turning the clock back before women's lib, ERA, etc.
That's all fine, and like I said, that's where alimony does make sense. But I've heard of cases where two spouses both have careers, albeit one makes substantially more than another, and alimony is awarded to the lower earner for lifestyle offset or something like that, basically that one spouse is accustomed to a certain lifestyle and therefore the higher earning spouse offsets the discrepancy. That's where I think it's ridiculous.
My brother tells that story. His wife had a career also and could make much more money if she switched job locations. But he now has to pay her because she won't move.
The truth is she did have a career and it was sidelined by their children, while his was not, and he continued up the ladder. She could move(like they did for his career once already, as a family) but doing so takes the children more than 100 miles away and she could lose custody and/or child support for breaking the parenting agreement.
Generally my brothers an ok guy, but his vision and view on this is objectively wrong, and viewed through a lense the divorce created in him.
Guess which version everyone in his small town knows, and what gets repeated...
Except even in dual income households a lot of times, the lower earner in the relationship has made career sacrifices to enable the higher earner, be it
taking a roles with lower responsibility to have increased flexibility
accepting jobs in new locations with limited growth opportunity when the higher earner moves for a promotion
foregoing growth opportunities / education earlier in life to support raising a family
Relationships are a partnership, working together for a collective goal. When one partner "makes substantially more than the other" that probably wasn't achieved alone
You mean how some people put their careers on hold to raise their kid(s) until they're old enough to go to school because the cost of child care is too expensive and thus their earnings and retirement suffered for over half a decade at least and then they get divorced and the stay at home dad is awarded some alimony because yeah, his earnings went way down after he re-entered the work force and thus was awarded alimony for making sure his wife and kids were taken care of and she was supported as she continued to work and move up?
But yeah, it's totally unfair that the wife was made to pay alimony even though they both had careers at the time of the divorce but she made much more money.
Alimony shouldn't exist.
But we should also have social safety nets in place such that alimony isn't necessary.
The idea of alimony, though, has morphed over the years from allowing someone to, as you say, consider divorce without being trapped by finances, to replacing a stay-at-home spouse's potential income had they not been the stay-at-home spouse. That change makes me pretty uncomfortable, especially the government stepping in requiring an ex spouse to pay what the other person might have made.
In Germany there is this net. But you still have to pay alimony.
Yeah, I’m conflicted on this one, absolutely hate DeSantis, but this doesn’t sound bad. There’s a lot of laws/policies that unfairly punish one group over another in divorces, custody, and child support. The pendulum on that front swung too far from one end of the spectrum to the other and needs to be equalized.
Have to agree. It's a relic of a much different time. With more women in the workforce and marriage rates dropping, being a divorcee no longer carries the stigma that it once did.
I'm okay with familial support being weighted to whomever has primary custody of any children.
And if there was a major discrepancy in net worth, like the Bezos fiasco, it seems fair to split things up more evenly.
It's a very touchy subject. I don't want to be even remotely associated with the "men's rights" shitstorm. But I would like to see more of these antiquated, gender-based laws get modernized.
Well in the case of kids, that's where child support comes in, and is a different story from alimony. In my view, barring a prenuptial agreement, it seems like the martial assets should be split, and that's that. In the case where one spouse dropped out of the workforce to raise a family, alimony does have some merit, but it shouldn't be a permanent monthly stipend; it may make sense to require some support for a couple years, but a breadwinner shouldn't be required to support an ex spouse in perpetuity.
Get a prenuptial agreement or don't marry a woman with no moral respect for anyone but herself. (Yes there are exceptions to this.) But I've seen too many men and women choose partners that are obviously terrible human beings, then go full surprised when that person ruined their lives. I have a friend that is still paying for her ex-husbands life style. I feel bad but all of her friends and family told her not to marry that guy but she doubled down and is on the hook until he marries again.
Problem is, you can end up with someone who isn’t a piece of shit but turns into one, or was always a piece of shit but they hid it well.
A lady I know had to divorce her husband after he had a stroke and turned into a raging, abusive narcissist. I can only imagine how confusing and painful it was for her.
That sounds absolutely horrifying, seeing someone you love turn into someone else, that too due to no fault of their own.