If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#211
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"Indyguy1" wrote in message ... Phil#3 wrote: "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... Phil#3 wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil. Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard of living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she wants a divorce. Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just decide, unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker. If a man doesn't want his W to be a SAHM there is a fairly simple solution. File for divorce at the onset of her SAHM career. Yep but either way, she stands a good to excellent chance to gain money and/or property, for nothing. How would she *gain money and/or property, for nothing* if she is working and contributing just like her H is? If she is a SAH, she is not "working and contributing like her H is...", it's somewhat different when one sets ones own duties, if any, and one's own hours, if any. Then there is the division of who works hardest and contributes more; it seems when it comes to court, just being married is all that is necessary to share a little more than equally. It sounds like you don't just disagree with the support aspects of divorce, but also feel when two people marry their contributions should charted and each should only get back what they put in financially, am I correct in this assumption? 1) I disagree with divorce without justifiable and valid cause. 2) I disagree that being married automatically entitles either party to take more from the marriage than was put in during. (Meaning, a SAH that does little more than minimum housework should not be rewarded according to their spouse's value to their employer). 3) During the divorce, nearly everything gained during the marriage should be as evenly as possible split INCLUDING the bills. 4) Post divorce, each party takes care of their own business and keeps their nose out of the other's. Any judge would send her swiftly back into the workforce. No, the judge will only pronounce divorce. What she does is up to her. She may become a panhandler or marry someone who will support her. Point being the judge won't set CS, in an income shares state, at a rate based on just her H's income and won't order SS providing she earns comparable to her stbx. The formula used makes little difference in the outcome; never is it what is warranted. All assets would be split 50/50. Not necessarily. My experience with this type "50/50" is: wife gets house and stuff, husband gets bills for house and stuff. That is more of a tinsletown movie line than it is reality. That's experience. I *know* it's reality. If said man was smart he married an equal income earner and will pay no alimony. All that will be left to figure out will be CS, and if he lives in an income shares state her salary will keep his CS in line with the level of income they BOTH earn. And above it all, no state's guidelines are in line with children's costs or needs, I would perfer to see actual costs used as oppossed to the averages now used. Of course some NCPs would pay less and some would pay more than they do right now. Of couse. When setting C$ for a man who has never earned above poverty, his would likely be higher than it would be according to guidelines. Other than that, all other NCPs, with few exceptions would pay less. You see, what so many seem to forget is that many of us NCP fathers were supporting the household prior to divorce and we KNOW how much it actually takes to support a child. neither is the custodial parent limited as to the use of the C$. Accountability is needed, I agree. For all intents and purposes, C$ *is* alimony, only as C$ it is not deductible. Any portion of CS that isn't being used for the child or for something that benefits the child that portion could be looked at as hidden alimony. Oh, I think charges of outright fraud or embezzlement-by-trustee would be ever so much better, maybe even extortion. Hmmmm..... I wonder how many divorces are due to the H not wanting the W to be a SAHM? My guess would be not many, at least not at the onset. Of course it tends to be a major bone of contention when the men no longer benefit from their wife giving up their career, and they feel all that is earned and has been earned is theirs and theirs alone. What you see as "giving up their career" I see as parasitic. Apparently many other men don't agree with you, unless they divorce. Probably not, but I don't require others to agree with me to form an opinion especially one that is based on my experience. I don't think having a wife is a necessary condition for sucess in any endeavor except divorce. If a man wants kids and those kids to have a parent available to them to do the tasks that they require, while he can still pursue his career without having to take time off and still have leisure time, then a SAHM is a condition that can and does accomplish this for a man. *No* man can be assured that he will be allowed to become, or continue to be, a parent (or the parent he chooses to be). Anyone can hire nurses, babysitters, keepers and every other aspect of a SAH's duties including sex (with or without faked orgasms), cooking, cleaning or anything else. Any "services" provided by wifes can be purchased outright, often with better results I'm starting to think you might have been better suited to hiring a surrogate mother than have been married. That or since you chose to marry a real slug you deem all/most women as slugs. I would have been better suited to remain single and have a vasectomy at 17. I love my children but I wouldn't do it again, knowing what I now know. and far cheaper. LOL Really? I don't know where you live but to get all the things done that most SAHMs I know, do in this area, the average income earner couldn't afford to pay the price. Pay?? I do most of them myself. I don't have to hire it done and I damn sure don't have to support someone to do these things and then just not have time to ever get them done. Housework is really overrated as "work". It's more like something to do during commercials. I own my home and my company has temporarily moved me out of state and furnished me with corporate housing. I go home every other weekend. I keep BOTH homes clean and chores at each end done. Laundry is done at each. Dishes, vacuuming.... There's no one but me. I've been doing this for over a year and my home at either end is actually more comfortable and cleaner than it ever was when I was married. Of course, I don't get the latest update of how 'opressed' women are according to whatever feminist-leaning TV show was on that day, but I've learned to live without it. Some can be obtained free of charge. Free? Without taking advantage of friends or relatives? List them would you, I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there that could benefit greatly from your knowledge on how to get some of what a SAHM does done for free. Sex. It's a trade-off. Both get, both give. Neither requires payment nor unfair advantage. It works for me and those with whom I 'trade'. Then there's friendship. I don't have to support someone for them to listen when I'm down, pat me on the back when I'm excelling or console me when I'm blue. Phil #3 Mrs Indyguy Phil #3 Mrs Indyguy |
#212
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
Phil #3 wrote:
"Indyguy1" wrote in message ... Phil#3 wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil. Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard of living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she wants a divorce. Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just decide, unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker. If a man doesn't want his W to be a SAHM there is a fairly simple solution. File for divorce at the onset of her SAHM career. Yep but either way, she stands a good to excellent chance to gain money and/or property, for nothing. Any judge would send her swiftly back into the workforce. No, the judge will only pronounce divorce. What she does is up to her. She may become a panhandler or marry someone who will support her. All assets would be split 50/50. Not necessarily. My experience with this type "50/50" is: wife gets house and stuff, husband gets bills for house and stuff. If said man was smart he married an equal income earner and will pay no alimony. All that will be left to figure out will be CS, and if he lives in an income shares state her salary will keep his CS in line with the level of income they BOTH earn. And above it all, no state's guidelines are in line with children's costs or needs, neither is the custodial parent limited as to the use of the C$. For all intents and purposes, C$ *is* alimony, only as C$ it is not deductible. Hmmmm..... I wonder how many divorces are due to the H not wanting the W to be a SAHM? My guess would be not many, at least not at the onset. Of course it tends to be a major bone of contention when the men no longer benefit from their wife giving up their career, and they feel all that is earned and has been earned is theirs and theirs alone. What you see as "giving up their career" I see as parasitic. I don't think having a wife is a necessary condition for sucess in any endeavor except divorce. Any "services" provided by wifes can be purchased outright, often with better results and far cheaper. Some can be obtained free of charge. Phil #3 Your last point is particularly valid, Phil. Property awards in divorce are based on the assumption that the wife contributed to the husband's career. That's complete nonsense, of course, particularly when the husband's talents and efforts have created nearly all of the assets. You just need to think what would happen if Melinda Gates decided to divorce Bill. The fact of the matter is that the supposed reason for 50/50 splits of assets in divorces (that the wife contributed to the husband's career) is completely phony. Few people are impolite enough to say this, and risk being branded as anti-woman. However, most people know what the score is. You can see it very clearly when you hear the contorted reasoning that goes into "proving" to a judge that a stay-at-home wife made an equal contribution. ("He never would have been where he is today, your honor, if he hadn't had the encouragement of my client, his wife, and her ability to act as hostess at business functions.") The reality is that many wives RETARD their husband's careers by undermining the sense of security that a man should have within his family. The men would have done better without their wives. Furthermore, 50/50 splits of assets are a strong encouragement for wives to seek divorces. |
#213
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
"Kenneth S." wrote in message ... Your last point is particularly valid, Phil. Property awards in divorce are based on the assumption that the wife contributed to the husband's career. That's complete nonsense, of course, particularly when the husband's talents and efforts have created nearly all of the assets. You just need to think what would happen if Melinda Gates decided to divorce Bill. The fact of the matter is that the supposed reason for 50/50 splits of assets in divorces (that the wife contributed to the husband's career) is completely phony. Few people are impolite enough to say this, and risk being branded as anti-woman. However, most people know what the score is. You can see it very clearly when you hear the contorted reasoning that goes into "proving" to a judge that a stay-at-home wife made an equal contribution. ("He never would have been where he is today, your honor, if he hadn't had the encouragement of my client, his wife, and her ability to act as hostess at business functions.") There is still another caveate to this argument. Say the husband's net worth went down during the marriage. The wife would argue she should not have to share 50/50 in the asset decline because she was NOT directly involved in the process. The dicorce arguments are always situational. Wouldn't it just be ironic for a family court judge to rule a wife owes her husband $10 million because their net worth declined $20 million during the marriage? |
#214
|
|||
|
|||
Drew's Solution to The Dave's concept
You haven't paid much attention in the past when this subject has been
discussed... Phil#3 wrote: "Indyguy1" wrote in message ... Phil#3 wrote: "Kenneth S." wrote in message ... You have correctly summarized the situation for many men, Phil. Almost the only benefit that you can count on as a man is a possible rise in your standard of living, as a result of the "two can live as cheaply as one" syndrome, plus the fact that the woman you marry is likely to have her own income. However, that rise in your standard of living may well come to an abrupt end, if your wife decides she wants a divorce. Ah, but you cannot count on that for fear that the wife will just decide, unilaterally, to be a SAH homemaker. If a man doesn't want his W to be a SAHM there is a fairly simple solution. File for divorce at the onset of her SAHM career. Yep but either way, she stands a good to excellent chance to gain money and/or property, for nothing. How would she *gain money and/or property, for nothing* if she is working and contributing just like her H is? It sounds like you don't just disagree with the support aspects of divorce, but also feel when two people marry their contributions should charted and each should only get back what they put in financially, am I correct in this assumption? Any judge would send her swiftly back into the workforce. No, the judge will only pronounce divorce. What she does is up to her. She may become a panhandler or marry someone who will support her. Point being the judge won't set CS, in an income shares state, at a rate based on just her H's income Those who have bothered to spend any time studying the tables have pointed out repeatedly that they are set up such that changes in the CP's income have little or negative effect on the NCP's payments, with the result being that for all intents and purposes even "income shares" states take a percentage based just on the NCP's income. and won't order SS providing she earns comparable to her stbx. All assets would be split 50/50. Not necessarily. My experience with this type "50/50" is: wife gets house and stuff, husband gets bills for house and stuff. That is more of a tinsletown movie line than it is reality. If said man was smart he married an equal income earner and will pay no alimony. All that will be left to figure out will be CS, and if he lives in an income shares state her salary will keep his CS in line with the level of income they BOTH earn. And above it all, no state's guidelines are in line with children's costs or needs, I would perfer to see actual costs used as oppossed to the averages now used. Of course some NCPs would pay less and some would pay more than they do right now. neither is the custodial parent limited as to the use of the C$. Accountability is needed, I agree. For all intents and purposes, C$ *is* alimony, only as C$ it is not deductible. Any portion of CS that isn't being used for the child or for something that benefits the child that portion could be looked at as hidden alimony. Hmmmm..... I wonder how many divorces are due to the H not wanting the W to be a SAHM? My guess would be not many, at least not at the onset. Of course it tends to be a major bone of contention when the men no longer benefit from their wife giving up their career, and they feel all that is earned and has been earned is theirs and theirs alone. What you see as "giving up their career" I see as parasitic. Apparently many other men don't agree with you, unless they divorce. I don't think having a wife is a necessary condition for sucess in any endeavor except divorce. If a man wants kids and those kids to have a parent available to them to do the tasks that they require, while he can still pursue his career without having to take time off and still have leisure time, then a SAHM is a condition that can and does accomplish this for a man. Any "services" provided by wifes can be purchased outright, often with better results I'm starting to think you might have been better suited to hiring a surrogate mother than have been married. That or since you chose to marry a real slug you deem all/most women as slugs. and far cheaper. LOL Really? I don't know where you live but to get all the things done that most SAHMs I know, do in this area, the average income earner couldn't afford to pay the price. You flatter yourself. It's not becoming on you... Mel Gamble Some can be obtained free of charge. Free? Without taking advantage of friends or relatives? List them would you, I'm sure there are plenty of parents out there that could benefit greatly from your knowledge on how to get some of what a SAHM does done for free. Mrs Indyguy Phil #3 Mrs Indyguy |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Dust Mite Allergies - A Solution That Works!! | kazham | Kids Health | 0 | March 9th 04 11:23 AM |