Divorce question

[penelope10]

I was referring to the MARRIED taxpayers. And you are right, the divorce rate is OVER 50% now as a direct result of the efforts of the women's movement.

Odds are over 50% that these taxpayers COULD be paying alimony sometime in the future. (that would be spousal maintenance in Texas of course)

Thank you!

 

[mistoffolees]

I was referring to the MARRIED taxpayers. And you are right, the divorce rate is OVER 50% now as a direct result of the efforts of the women's movement.

Odds are over 50% that these taxpayers COULD be paying alimony sometime in the future. (that would be spousal maintenance in Texas of course)

That's a big drop from your original claim that 50% of taxpayers would be paying alimony.

Take the total number of tax payers.

Figure out the percentage who marry.

Now, the percentage of that group who divorce.

Now, the percentage of THAT group who pay alimony (hint: even if alimony were ordered in every divorce, only 50% would be paying. In reality, alimony is ordered only in a small percentage of divorces, and usually only for a limited time).

The result is that the number of people paying alimony in this country is quite small. Your whining doesn't change that fact.

 

[Bali Hai]

That's a big drop from your original claim that 50% of taxpayers would be paying alimony.

Take the total number of tax payers.

Figure out the percentage who marry.

Now, the percentage of that group who divorce.

Now, the percentage of THAT group who pay alimony (hint: even if alimony were ordered in every divorce, only 50% would be paying. In reality, alimony is ordered only in a small percentage of divorces, and usually only for a limited time).

The result is that the number of people paying alimony in this country is quite small. Your whining doesn't change that fact.

Yes and I suspect the number of people paying alimony to get even smaller as time goes by. People are wising up and refusing to marry these gold diggers!!

 

[tuffbrk]

Okay - corrections to Bali and Mistle...

Mistle -
I'm paying and it's permanent. There was not even a question or the ability to discuss length of time as I had a long term marriage. My state mandates that if it's long term it's automatically permanent. In the tri-state area, at least, that's pretty much the only rule that is on the "rolls" so to speak. The courts awarded 40% of my net income - before expenses - to my now Ex...and I have custody of 2 unemancipated minors and do not recieve a dime in CS. And the courts could care less that they left me with all of the fixed expenses in addition to the support of my children to be managed on 60% of my salary. Do you know anyone who can afford to live on only 60% of their salary when they have fixed expenses that they are either unable to modify or unable to modify in less than a year?! I certainly don't.

Fortunately, the amount for me is modifiable because we only agreed to not go thru a lengthy court fight based on it being modifiable. I can only DREAM that one day Jerseyans would agree to something similar to TX. However, we already have a state sales tax, the 2nd highest cigarette tax, etc. and Jerseyans do NOT want to add to the Welfare rolls. The state laws do not empower the judges to order folks to work - athough those laws also do not empower the judges to override federal rules (like the IRS for example) and the judges make sweeping pronouncements and sign off every day without any kind of liability for the parties' end state. I am blessed in that IRS knowledgeable Seniors are so willing to share their knowledge which prevented me from a number of missteps from a tax perspective.

Bali-
I didn't marry a gold digger. Not at first anyway. He always worked. It was only when I told him I was going forward and filing for a divorce that he quit work! So they're not ALL gold diggers. I'm guessing in a large number of cases, it's merely a bitter, enraged STBX that manipulates the system with an unscrupulous attorney at their side that winds up being awarded alimony.

 

[Bali Hai]

Okay - corrections to Bali and Mistle...

Mistle -
I'm paying and it's permanent. There was not even a question or the ability to discuss length of time as I had a long term marriage. My state mandates that if it's long term it's automatically permanent. In the tri-state area, at least, that's pretty much the only rule that is on the "rolls" so to speak. The courts awarded 40% of my net income - before expenses - to my now Ex...and I have custody of 2 unemancipated minors and do not recieve a dime in CS. And the courts could care less that they left me with all of the fixed expenses in addition to the support of my children to be managed on 60% of my salary. Do you know anyone who can afford to live on only 60% of their salary when they have fixed expenses that they are either unable to modify or unable to modify in less than a year?! I certainly don't.

Fortunately, the amount for me is modifiable because we only agreed to not go thru a lengthy court fight based on it being modifiable. I can only DREAM that one day Jerseyans would agree to something similar to TX. However, we already have a state sales tax, the 2nd highest cigarette tax, etc. and Jerseyans do NOT want to add to the Welfare rolls. The state laws do not empower the judges to order folks to work - athough those laws also do not empower the judges to override federal rules (like the IRS for example) and the judges make sweeping pronouncements and sign off every day without any kind of liability for the parties' end state. I am blessed in that IRS knowledgeable Seniors are so willing to share their knowledge which prevented me from a number of missteps from a tax perspective.

Bali-
I didn't marry a gold digger. Not at first anyway. He always worked. It was only when I told him I was going forward and filing for a divorce that he quit work! So they're not ALL gold diggers. I'm guessing in a large number of cases, it's merely a bitter, enraged STBX that manipulates the system with an unscrupulous attorney at their side that winds up being awarded alimony.

Hear Hear, a good reason to abolish these rediculous alimony laws!! Give me liberty or give me death!!!

Well Misty, let's hear the reasons WHY this person should be paying alimony and should stop "whining" about it!!

 

[mistoffolees]

I'm paying and it's permanent. There was not even a question or the ability to discuss length of time as I had a long term marriage. My state mandates that if it's long term it's automatically permanent. In the tri-state area, at least, that's pretty much the only rule that is on the "rolls" so to speak. The courts awarded 40% of my net income - before expenses - to my now Ex...and I have custody of 2 unemancipated minors and do not recieve a dime in CS.

Sounds like pretty much the extreme scenario. Don't even pretend that it's typical.

 

[Bali Hai]

Sounds like pretty much the extreme scenario. Don't even pretend that it's typical.

They're all pretty much the extreme scenario in the tri-state area, trust me!!

 

[penelope10]

They're all pretty much the extreme scenario in the tri-state area, trust me!!

Hey I sent you something---look up to the far right hand corner, top of the screen....

 

[tuffbrk]

Sounds like pretty much the extreme scenario. Don't even pretend that it's typical.

You've missed the point. There is no such thing as "typical" in the tri-state area. The only "rule" is that long term marriages = automatic permanent alimony. There is no discussion about it and no wiggle room whatsoever.

Bali complains about the judges because - well, let's face it - they're people with subjective opinions. They are going to get the blame until such time as an actual calculation is developed that is then tweaked as a result of property and asset settlement. NONE of the assets, property, etc. that my Ex received from me, tax liabilities that I had to assume, etc.was even taken into consideration. He simply gets half of everything and there is no negotiating about it. He even rec'd half of a solely employer funded retirement account that we argued wasn't a marital asset as it hadn't been funded with marital monies.

Unfortunately, there are no "real" laws or guidelines for the Judges to follow. Until then? Men and women like myself and Bali will always be allowed to be taken advantage of and expected to work multiple jobs in an attempt to keep an Ex in the style in which they chose to become accustomed to at our expense during the marriage. Unfortunately in my case, my sons wound up in the same boat as myself.

IMHO? My marriage, in terms of alimony at least, should have been considered a short term marriage. My Ex was the Primary breadwinner until 2004 when I finally matched him. So during a 3 yr long divorce war the man didn't choose to work for the first 2 years and then got sick the last year. Fully documented proof was submitted. Yet, the courts only cared about the last year - yet took into account my income for the prior 3 full calendar years. Said the case was topsy turvy and they did the best they could. Go figure!

As an aside - my judge who was a female BTW - actually apologized to me that it was quite clear my husband was manipulating the system and that she felt badly that there really was nothing that she could do. Yet she signed off on a decree authorizing me to claim HOH for the prior calendar year - which is clearly against the law. Again - it's just a flawed system. Had I been asked to pony up for a year or two - I would've dealt with it better. But forever? This is exactly what he told me he was going to do at the onset. Even went to the hospital pretending to be suicidal and attending some counseling to form the basis of a mental health issue as his reason for not working. He worked so hard at trying to pretend he couldn't work due to mental illness that Karma came around and he had a serious helath issue. Now that he's been transplanted over 9 months ago and is fine - he's claiming he has Alzheimer's and that's why he can't work.

Purely ridiculous. And of course when I'm struggling just to pay the bills and keep food on the table I'm somehow supposed to be able to afford a PI to document his movements and afford an attorney to go back to court to argue for a reduction of the amount or the amount completely wiped out due to his misrepresentation of being disabled ...gotta love it!

 

[mistoffolees]

You've missed the point. There is no such thing as "typical" in the tri-state area. The only "rule" is that long term marriages = automatic permanent alimony. There is no discussion about it and no wiggle room whatsoever.

Bali complains about the judges because - well, let's face it - they're people with subjective opinions. They are going to get the blame until such time as an actual calculation is developed that is then tweaked as a result of property and asset settlement. NONE of the assets, property, etc. that my Ex received from me, tax liabilities that I had to assume, etc.was even taken into consideration. He simply gets half of everything and there is no negotiating about it. He even rec'd half of a solely employer funded retirement account that we argued wasn't a marital asset as it hadn't been funded with marital monies.

Unfortunately, there are no "real" laws or guidelines for the Judges to follow. Until then? Men and women like myself and Bali will always be allowed to be taken advantage of and expected to work multiple jobs in an attempt to keep an Ex in the style in which they chose to become accustomed to at our expense during the marriage. Unfortunately in my case, my sons wound up in the same boat as myself.

IMHO? My marriage, in terms of alimony at least, should have been considered a short term marriage. My Ex was the Primary breadwinner until 2004 when I finally matched him. So during a 3 yr long divorce war the man didn't choose to work for the first 2 years and then got sick the last year. Fully documented proof was submitted. Yet, the courts only cared about the last year - yet took into account my income for the prior 3 full calendar years. Said the case was topsy turvy and they did the best they could. Go figure!

As an aside - my judge who was a female BTW - actually apologized to me that it was quite clear my husband was manipulating the system and that she felt badly that there really was nothing that she could do. Yet she signed off on a decree authorizing me to claim HOH for the prior calendar year - which is clearly against the law. Again - it's just a flawed system. Had I been asked to pony up for a year or two - I would've dealt with it better. But forever? This is exactly what he told me he was going to do at the onset. Even went to the hospital pretending to be suicidal and attending some counseling to form the basis of a mental health issue as his reason for not working. He worked so hard at trying to pretend he couldn't work due to mental illness that Karma came around and he had a serious helath issue. Now that he's been transplanted over 9 months ago and is fine - he's claiming he has Alzheimer's and that's why he can't work.

Purely ridiculous. And of course when I'm struggling just to pay the bills and keep food on the table I'm somehow supposed to be able to afford a PI to document his movements and afford an attorney to go back to court to argue for a reduction of the amount or the amount completely wiped out due to his misrepresentation of being disabled ...gotta love it!

Looks to me like YOU are the one misrepresenting things - at least here. You've stated on multiple occasions that a long term marriage automatically means permanent alimony. That is not the default. It only applies if the other spouse is unable to work - something you conveniently keep forgetting to mention.

Yes, there are people who abuse the system. But to pretend that your situation is typical is just plain absurd.