Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Halo on January 28, 2008, 11:42:32 AM
-
We know quite a few people who have divorced, and their experiences vary widely as you probably would expect. Another person we know is getting divorced and is asking for advice beyond what will be received from paid mediators, arbitrators, lawyers, and the courts.
After researching more and thinking more about divorces we know, we're unable to find many specific formulas for dividing marriage assets beyond the general 50-50 community property split many states require.
Nevertheless, I'm thinking there should be some general principles. For discussion, here are some. What do you think? How would you modify them to be the most fair and equitable? All of these in effect are prefaced by "IN GENERAL, AS A STARTING POINT FOR FINE TUNING:"
1. Husband and wife property should be divided as close as possible to 50-50, i.e., half to each.
a. Many states apparently start with this principle. This gets challenging if, for example, a young woman marries an old rich man and divorces him after only a year or two.
b. Sure, prenups probably would negate gold digging in a savvy union, but lots of unions are not that well thought out.
2. Children should be provided for until age 18, i.e., until completing high school or equivalent. This supposes children are NOT owed any college education or post high school training by their parents. Some people think children should be supported until age 21. What do you think?
3. Any alimony (allowance for living expenses from one spouse to the other) should start at the effective date of their living apart and terminate after the years in divorce equal the years in marriage, e.g., if married 12 years, alimony for no longer than 12 years.
a. This fundamental fairness negates controversial issues about paying alimony for life and questions about remarriage or cohabitation.
b. For example, if a husband and wife divorce after 10 years of marriage, with no children, and he makes $40,000 a year and she makes $80,000 a year, she would pay him $20,000 a year (so they both would have $60,000 a year) for 10 years and no longer, no matter whether either remarries or lives with anyone else.
4. Both parties must expect the reverse of the synergy achieved by marriage, i.e., if 1+1=3 in combining assets through marriage, divorce will feel like less than the 1 each partner contributed to the union. This often means the primary residence must be sold with both husband and wife then relegated to smaller houses, condos, or apartments.
5. For child asset percentage allocation, generally consider 10% per child up to five children. For example:
a. Husband 50%, wife 50%
b. Husband 45%, wife 45%
One child 10%
c. Husband 40%, wife 40%
Two children 20% (10% each)
d. Husband 35%, wife 35%
Three children 30% (10% each)
e. Husband 30%, wife 30%
Four children 40% (10% each)
f. Husband 25%, wife 25%
Five children 50% (10% each)
6. Child custody (until the child reaches age 18) thus alters household percentages like these examples:
a. Husband custody of two children
Husband 60%, wife 40%
b. Wife custody of three children
Husband 35%, wife 65%
(1) For easiest visualization, if the husband makes $100,000 a year and the wife has no income, if she gets custody of their three children, he would be paying her $65,000 alimony a year and he would retain $35,000 a year.
(2) If the husband got custody of two children and the wife custody of one child, he would retain $55,000 a year and the wife $45,000.
c. As each child reaches the age of 18, the 10% for that child reverts to 5% added to each parent's settlement as part of the general 50-50 split for marriage assets that was used as a starting point before considering children of the marriage.
(1) For example, when the oldest of the two children living with the father reaches 18, the father's $55,000 a year decreases 5% to $50,000 a year while the mother's $45,000 increases to $50,000 since each has one child still in his or her custody.
7. The 50-50 initial property split would be as of the effective date of the divorce. Usually this requires selling the house or one spouse buying out the other spouse's share in the overall settlement.
8. The alimony would be determined by the average of the family's gross annual income for the past five years as shown on their federal income tax returns. For example, $50,000 + $60,000 + $45,000 +$75,000 +$90,000 = $320,000 / 5 = $64,000 to be the base figure for computing annual alimony for as many years as the marriage lasted.
a. For example, this $64,000 would be $32,000 each for husband and wife in the initial 50-50 division.
b. Any children would alter the alimony 10% each depending which parent had custody, e.g., one child living with the mother would be (see 5b) father having 45% ($28,800) and the mother having 55% ($35,200).
9. Although either party could apply or file for readjustment of alimony after the divorce, generally these principles would prevail as fairest to all concerned for the rest of their lives. Assets such as property or income acquired after the divorce should NOT be retrofitted into the divorce settlement, i.e., neither party could draw additional resources from the other that were gained after the split.
What do you think? Based on your experience with divorces, either personal or with friends or family, are these principles reasonable or unreasonable? Which if any should be changed, and how? What others would you add?
-
And thats only part of the complications that can arise
Safe to say if you make 100K per year and wifey doesnt work.
Its not in your best interests to get divorced LOL
Oh and here in Jersey. If your kid goes to college.
the parents are still responcable for child support of that kid. including his education.
Between tuition and books It costs us about 18K per year for our son to attend Rutgers
-
I don't understand number 5.
Is this stating that children are entitled to a percentage of family assets?
If so, I disagree.
-
I beleive what he is saying is that is the amount that is supposedly to be allocated to the raising of the kids. food,clothing etc.
-
Thanks, Drediock, that's what I meant in No. 5.
Thanks also for the college input. College and whether age 18 or 21 for cutoff are among the greatest puzzles to me.
College is so expensive it has always struck me as a bonus and not an entitlement.
But if people generally think kids should be supported until age 21 instead of 18, college would be more of factor in divorce settlements.
-
The very first thing you need to do is to make Men and Women equal. This sounds like a given, but it really isn't. As of right now, Men have little or no court given rights in anything. The court could even hold a trial without informing the husband, as decided by the the higher supreme courts.
The Husbands are assumed to be dead-beat dads and never given the chance or choice to change this. Instead of Innocent until Proven Guilty, They are guilty because they have a noodle.
Once you've set this clear, then you can proceed.
Next, get rid of the Family Courts. When the Child Support Services controls the courts, they will rule how they see fit, regardless of law or reality. Set up another branch of the court that can be in no way connected to Child Support Services.
Next, alimony to EITHER party goes on for at maximum a year, or until they get a job. If they don't have a job at the end of the year, they get their lazy tulips cut off.
Next, child support and child's medical support isn't to be a presupposed cost. The Cost of both will be split AFTER the fact when presented with a bill for costs. Child Support goes until the kid hits 18, or has graduated highschool.
Next, child custody is not presupposed.
Once you have done all those things, then you have a good base for equitable divorce proceedings.
-
Well, I work as a lawyer, and I do almost exclusively custody battles and divorces. Those ideas are completely unreasonable, for lots of reasons, but mainly because they seem to be taking some sort of common sense approach based on your belief of right and wrong. In reality the situation is vastly more complex than that.
Some general pointers
1) In a custody battle you dont really want to split up the kids "you take one and I take two" is not really in the best interest of the kids.
2) Lets just say that if a 10-year marriage ends because the stay-home-wife was cheating with the neighbour, the hubby might be reluctant to pay her half his income for 10 years.
3) Alimony = evil. The idea that one spouse should pay money to the other spouse after the divorce and the separation of the common economy is a communist idea and as such it is both evil and stupid. I simply do not understand why one spouse should pay for the other AFTER the divorce. The idea that one spouse has stayed at home and the other has worked and thus earned more money is something that is settled in the divorce, where both spouses divide the shared wealth of the marriage.
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
Well, I work as a lawyer, and I do almost exclusively custody battles and divorces. Those ideas are completely unreasonable, for lots of reasons, but mainly because they seem to be taking some sort of common sense approach based on your belief of right and wrong. In reality the situation is vastly more complex than that.
It is only complex so that a attorney can charge 100-300 dollars and hour to sort it all out for the rest of us. The system does not have to be complex, in any form. It is kept that way for the sake of dollars and cents. The court system (in this country at least) is a industry. Just one big industry.
-
I need an aspirin after having read this thread.
-
I think this is a great thread. It points out a major issue in America. Women want equal rights to vote and in the work place, but when it comes to the courts a good majority of them like to play the babe in the woods routine. If women want equal rights, then they should have deal with every part of that "equal".
-
This February 29th *Leap Day* will be 28 Years of marriage. W00T!!!
:aok
Mac
-
Originally posted by BBBB
It is only complex so that a attorney can charge 100-300 dollars and hour to sort it all out for the rest of us. The system does not have to be complex, in any form. It is kept that way for the sake of dollars and cents. The court system (in this country at least) is a industry. Just one big industry.
No, its complex so it can be flexible. It needs to be flexible so it can take into consideration all the myriads of things that have led up to the divorce and custody fight. A legal system with a binary mechanism will look like a veterinarians treatment list for horses (if ill=shoot it, if healthy =leave it alone) or the judicial system of Saudia Arabia.
A legal system for such a vastly complex entity as our western civilization needs to be able to handle different situations in different manners. And if you think lawyers in this field is in it for the money LOL dude...the money is oh so not worth it.
The legal system in any nation takes a lot of time to learn how to understand and master. That is why it costs money to go to a lawyer (ie someone who has learned to master it). You can either learn it yourself, or if you dont want to spend that time and effort, then you have to pay. Welcome to capitalism.
-
Originally posted by AWMac
This February 29th *Leap Day* will be 28 Years of marriage. W00T!!!
:aok
Mac
Congrats. I hope I make it that long. Sometimes I question it though.
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Your input is appreciated. Thanks for playing. :aok I think this is a great thread. It points out a major issue in America. Women want equal rights to vote and in the work place, but when it comes to the courts a good majority of them like to play the babe in the woods routine. If women want equal rights, then they should have deal with every part of that "equal".
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful or anything. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around being in a state of mind that would facilitate that kind of drastic act (divorce), or the hate that generally comes along with it. I do have some very strong opinions about some of the other stuff mentioned in the other posts. I don't think I'll share them though :)
-
Originally posted by Hortlund
And if you think lawyers in this field is in it for the money LOL dude...the money is oh so not worth it.
Your joking right? Maybe in your country, over here lawyers make more than enough money to make it well, well, worth it. I have a few family attorneys in my family. They are all about the money, they have a ton of it.
A system can be fair, flexible and still be simple to understand. The only argument I have ever heard from a Lawyer for justification of their profession is the complexity of the legal system. That seems to be the old fall back for lawyers.
The system does not have to be as simple as you pointed out. You took the words "simple" and "streamlined" and dumbed the down to a school grade level to prove your point. In reality if judges were allowed to really exercise moral judgment, instead of following a complex worded book to come up with a ruling, the system would be streamlined, simple and for the most part fair.
-
Originally posted by texasmom
Sorry, I wasn't trying to be disrespectful or anything. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around being in a state of mind that would facilitate that kind of drastic act (divorce), or the hate that generally comes along with it. I do have some very strong opinions about some of the other stuff mentioned in the other posts. I don't think I'll share them though :)
No worries, I was trying to be careful and not make generalities. I understand not all women feel the system is fair and just. I understand not all women exercise the twisting of the system, though their gender.
However, some do and those are the ones that most of the guys here are venting about. The system is really un-fair when it comes to men and raising children. For some reason the system doesn't think men can do this just as well as women. I think that is wrong.
-
I agree about the misguided belief about men raising kids. I have 3 kids to a previous relationship. The mother is a paranoid schizophrenic who is living with her mother (a very long story) how successfully lobbied for close to $200/week child support when I was working in Queensland. I worked on a semi contract basis as a roadside assistance patrol (RACQ) and even though during the holiday period I could earn in excess of $600 per week, during the of peak periods my earnings on occasion would actually be less than what the CSA demanded. Now my wife has a couple of serious medical conditions that require some at times costly treatment, and this was unacceptable for me. Especially since we did not have access which for some reason the courts granted me rights but the two evil ones have made it logistically infeasible so the only contact I have is letters I write and that is one way traffic so I do not even know if they are even getting to them.
I sent letters but the witch and her parent Doberman somehow won out, so I delivered an ultimatum. Fix it or I go on the carer's pension and they get $10/fortnight.
Well they didn't do so I went to the pension. For two years we did this, we moved to an area where Sarah had close access to her specialists, and we made do living an a caravan park. After our little girl (we also have a son who died in childbirth :() was born I decided it was time to try it out again and sought out work. This time the CSA was remarkably accommodating. We worked out a manageable payment plan for the arrears which are now totally paid off and now the two dragons on the coast are getting $6.75 per week.
-
Just by scannng through I noted two problems.
The use of the words fair and alimony.
-
In the USA if your wife initiates the divorce without your knowlege along with getting a restraining order before you get home from work, she can wind up with everything. This is SOP, especially if the wife contacts a womens center for divorce advice. Many husbands unprepaired for the restraining order will screw themsevles by their first minutes of conduct getting home cluless to their wives intentions.
You will have a black mark on your criminal record you didn't know your wife just gave you by getting the restraining order. In divorce court the judge will be looking at your innocent\unknowing violation of that order as willful misconduct and be concerned for your wifes safety. The federal Violence against Women and Childrens Act has enabled the issuing of restraining orders without evidence, just the wifes word. It also presumes husbands guilty without passing through the presumption of innocent till proven guilty, or facing your accusor.
-
Only in America....
http://www.amazon.com/Hit-Where-Hurts-Take-No-Prisoners-Divorce-Alimony/dp/1593377398
Written by a female divorce lawyer who is a member of NOW.
-
There is no way your wife can get a restraining order that fast. She might be able to get a PPO, but in reality she has to go before a judge and show proof that she is in danger.
A PPO is not supposed to go on your record. Most PPOs are only two week matters, time enough for the court to take a good look at the situation before granting her a full fledged restraining order.
The laws on PPO vary from state to state, some states a PPO is nothing more than a warning to leave someone alone, they do not take your guns and things like that. In some states a PPO carries just about as much weight at a Restraining order and the Sheriff Dept will come over, take your guns and all that jazz.
However, you are correct, a woman can go in front of a judge with little to no evidence, just a tearful testimony and slam you with a PPO in a matter of minuets. The whole thing start to finish would take her under 30 mins.
In contrast getting a PPO on a female..damn near impossible. Moses had an easier time parting the Red Sea. I dated a woman a few years back, got tangled up with her. When I broke it off she went sideways. I came out one morning to find my car trashed among other things.
I called the police, filed all the proper paper work, went down to the court house to get a PPO. I took me nearly all day and a favor having to be called in on my behalf by a long time friend of the family and a local judge, before the judge here in Cobb county granted me a PPO against her.
I got a 30 day PPO. It did me practically no good. She violated it a week later, when I called the police they gave her a stern talking to and cut her loose. Had the roles been reversed I would have been in handcuffs on the way to the county most likely.
-
In Hit Him Where It Hurts, acclaimed matrimonial attorney Sherri Donovan shows you how to take the offensive in the bloody game we call divorce.
See thats just it, these divorce attorneys think this is a game. That it is a sport. This is someones lively hood we are talking about. That is hardly a game. It sickens me that people can make money like this.
-
Hmm.. not to sound heartless...
but this reminds me of that one Guns and Roses song. What was it called, "I used to love her?" :confused:
-
Originally posted by BBBB
Your joking right? Maybe in your country, over here lawyers make more than enough money to make it well, well, worth it. I have a few family attorneys in my family. They are all about the money, they have a ton of it.
[/b]
Oh, I make money alright. I bill my clients ~200 USD/Hour. Its still not worth it. You have no idea what this work is like.
A system can be fair, flexible and still be simple to understand. The only argument I have ever heard from a Lawyer for justification of their profession is the complexity of the legal system. That seems to be the old fall back for lawyers.
[/b]
LOL really? You would hear the same thing from a doctor. They spend roughly the same amount of time to learn their profession as we do. Still I doubt you would want to get surgery from a wal-mart employee...
The law has evolved over hundreds of years into what it is today. There is a reason for that. The law has to ensure equality, predictability, fairness, and it has to be written in a way so people can apply it to every possible situation.
The system does not have to be as simple as you pointed out. You took the words "simple" and "streamlined" and dumbed the down to a school grade level to prove your point. In reality if judges were allowed to really exercise moral judgment, instead of following a complex worded book to come up with a ruling, the system would be streamlined, simple and for the most part fair.
What makes you think that? If we had a system where we let the judges use their own "moral compass" to exercise "moral judgement" the system would be arbitrary, unfair and a complete nightmare. It would all be up to the judge, and if he had a different opinion of whats right and wrong, then you would be completely screwed. There would be no way to predict the outcome of a trial, it would all depend on the mood of the judge on that day.
-
Alimony in this day and age is just stupid. Pre-nups should be mandatory documentation for any marriage license application. Custody should be granted with no regard for traditional or standardized formulas. There's enough data out there now to determine where the best interests of the children lie. We're just coming around to understanding how wrong we have been for all these years.
I have always said that two professions we as a society could easily do without are lawyers and tax preparers. We can easily alter our codes and statutes to make those disciplines as they exist today obsolete. Any 4th grader should be able to understand our criminal and tax code. Anything more complicated is just there to make it profitable to those who are in those professions.
I also think doing away with single judge courts of any kind are a good idea. Along with enforcing accountability and a degree of transparency in the judiciary we could conceivably make the legal process a thing which actually benefits society as opposed to the culture we currently endure.
When it comes to the debacle we quaintly call "family" law what's needed is a complete rewriting of the rulebook. If we can create a process that removes the potential for an uninvolved third party to profit from the dissolution of a family we could start to reverse the damage done to the fabric of our society over the last half century.
The assault on the American family is not spearheaded by the entertainment industry, drugs, or the "moral decline" of the 20th/21st centuries. It has in fact been led by, in no particular order, our courts and law enforcement agencies, social service agencies and of course, the "women's" movement. We all are culpable for the state of affairs we endure today and our kids are going to be the beneficiaries of the laissez fair attitude we have taken regarding their welfare.
But it all comes back to accountability. For instance, filing a false police report in most jurisdictions is either a high degree misdemeanor or low order felony. Enforcement of this one law alone could conceivably remove over half of the cases presented in the nation's "family" courts. Bringing law enforcement and the courts into the liability chain would probably clear up most of the remainder. Not to mention the collateral benefit of being able to better employ the myriad resources wasted there in more productive "civil service".
-
hortlund.. why am I not surprised that you are a divorce lawyer?
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund.. why am I not surprised that you are a divorce lawyer?
lazs
:rofl :lol :aok
Dammit I can`t keep this screen clean.
-
being somewhat of an expert on divorce....
I think that the real way it should be handled is... no kids.. go by the pre nupt for everything before the marriage and split everything 50/50 that was accumulated after the marriage.
kids..
Well.. there you have it. the parents should be instructed to live in the same area till the kids are grown.. no child support. both parents have equal time.. 1 week each, alternating.
If one leaves the area.. they lose all rights save those granted by the other and they pay child support.
It is a child... not a puppy.. you made it.. you need to get serious about it. Your life is not your own till it is on its own.
Don't like that? don't have kids or don't split up till they are grown if you do.
lazs
-
Lazs,
The only problem with that formula is that it really only fits a narrow segment of the population.
What about military parents? What about the winners of the love lottery like Michael Jordan's ex.?
Most problem divorce decrees are problematic because they are formulaic in nature. It's not hard to evaluate each case subjectively and arrive at a common sense resolution. The fact that the industry choses to ignore the core issues and hard data, and instead applies assembly line protocols is the heart of the problem.
-
Thank you all, excellent and thought provoking insights.
Would like to hear more from women too, and more on the following specifics:
1. How long children are expected to be supported, e.g., to age 18 or 21.
2. Whether children are "owed" college or other education or training beyond high school.
3. If children are involved and if alimony is ordered, the reasonableness of my formula proposed in the thread starter. Since no one has commented on its specifics so far, I'm assuming either it's too complicated to bother with or it's okay.
In other words, if child support and/or alimony are involved, and they often are, somewhere there has to be a general starting formula. Mine seems reasonable to me because it would give both husband and wife a sense of logic, fairness, order, and finite duration including an equitable conclusion to work toward, i.e., here's x amount of money based on your life together until separation, and here's how long any divorce payments (alimony) will last.
My motivation stems partially from hearing some women talk about how they didn't expect to get so much alimony, and how they can keep getting it by delaying or never remarrying. And from some men talking about how it's so unfair they have to keep supporting their ex-wife even after the 50-50 assets split and even when she lives with other guys. They're particularly disappointed when they see no end in sight to the alimony.
On the other hand, I know some women who have gotten very little from their former husbands, including one whose new husband let the previous husband off the hook by financing all expenses of her kid with her previous husband and much of her debt (e.g., credit card) incurred with the previous husband. The new husband and her raised that child from 4 years to 20 years with zero financial help from her first husband and practically no contact at all between the kid and his biological father.
I also know some people who have divorced equitably and amicably with no alimony at all (no kids and nearly equal earning capacity).
On a slightly different tack, I know three attractive and nice women who married guys who had young children. After these women helped raise their stepchildren to high school graduation, their husbands divorced them.
I'm assuming that in most divorces, particularly those involving children, alimony WILL be ordered in one form or another, so I'm trying to offer a starting formula that will be the most fair to both the neediest ex-partner and the one who has to help support that ex-partner for awhile, hopefully not to eternity.
This is not just theory. It's what I'll suggest to my contact as he meets with his lawyer to formulate his strategy for his divorce hearing. Naturally he'll keep his mouth shut and listen to his lawyer's spiel first. But then I want him to have the strongest inputs for his own well being and satisfaction.
So these are crucial negotiation points, not just thread what-ifs. Your help is much appreciated.
-
thruster.. I beg to differ...
It fits everyone. If you are in the military.. you get out and live where the kid is being raised or pay the child support.. at least under my rules you have a choice.
I don't understand about the love lottery thing.. do you mean bastard children?
No problem.. If one or the other parents don't want equal custody they can pay for support.
No parent owes their child higher education... 18 and they are on their own or can be helped if one of the parents so desires.
lazs
-
Originally posted by lazs2
hortlund.. why am I not surprised that you are a divorce lawyer?
lazs
LOL
-
God Bless
I think I just read that one should quit their occupation (among other things) because they get divorced. That should make it real easy to adjust.
Beside the obvious new age child-centric focus of such a move, it opens the door for even more manipulation and duress to be introduced into an already ugly mess.
love lottery- when you marry a person who becomes a gozzilionaire. Although much is to be said that behind every great man/woman...... I'm not convinced Ivanna deserves half of Donald's baseball card collection. Of course the rules change in the case of folks like the Clintons. If not for Hil's investment moxie they'd probably still be renting.
I tell my kids they can expect for their 18th birthday:
- A new suit of clothes
- $100.00
- a change of address card
They can trade the change of address card for a letter of acceptance from any accredited institute of higher learning.
As far as alimony goes.....
I have known women that I would understand someone paying to keep away. But unless there's been a demonstrable contribution to the other spouse's earning potential (supporting through school), a sacrifice of economic potential (quit job to raise a family) or obvious need (divorcing a terminally ill or disabled spouse) then alimony just doesn't fit with modern sensibilities.
-
One more hallucination: Have any of you ever heard of alimony and/or child support being indexed to the annual cost of living change (i.e., increase)? Like federal and some state and company pay raises?
If a divorced alimony/support payer still wanted to be as fair as possible to his or her ex and kids, presumably something like a 2 or 3 percent annual increase would be accepted as the fair thing to do to help preserve buying power.
If not, it would be one more insult to injury.
-
Originally posted by Halo
Thank you all, excellent and thought provoking insights.
Would like to hear more from women too, and more on the following specifics:
1. How long children are expected to be supported, e.g., to age 18 or 21.
[/b]
Children have the right to be supported until they reach the age of 18 or finish high school, whatever comes LAST.
2. Whether children are "owed" college or other education or training beyond high school.
[/b]
LOL, no. Again, it would be impossible to set generic rules here, since we might end up forcing a widow on minimum income to pay for her sons tuition, or if we swing the other way, a multi-billionare who wont have to pay for his son going to community college (or whatever, you get the idea).
Children are supported until thye are 18 or finish high school, after that they are on their own.
3. If children are involved and if alimony is ordered, the reasonableness of my formula proposed in the thread starter. Since no one has commented on its specifics so far, I'm assuming either it's too complicated to bother with or it's okay.
[/b]
First, let me start out by saying there are two kinds of alimony, one is to the spouse, one is to the kid. I see alimony to the spouse as a form of socialism and I hate that, its complete BS.
Now, alimony to the child..
The idea behind alimony to the child is that the child should not be any better or worse off depending on which parent it lives with. The idea is that the child should live with the parent that is best for the child, and that any difference in living standard for the child depending on which parent it lives with should be compensated by the alimony.
The formula for this we have over here is something like this
A = Economic need of the child (or cost for food, clothes etc)
B = Costs regarding childcare, school, etc
C = Other costs (sports activity etc)
D = Income of the child
A+B+C-D = The need of the child
Economic situation of the parent (calculated for both parents)
E = income (both from work or capital)
F = taxes
G = expenses
E-F-G = surplus
If the child lives with you, you get to decuct more expenses, if you are remarried, part of your spouses income will be added to yours. There are rules regarding which expenses are accepted in this formula or not.
Now, here comes the formula
Need of the child x (surplus of the "other" parent/sum of both parents surpus) = alimony
So, if dad has a surplus of 100, mom has a surplus of 20, the child has a need of 50, we get
50x100/120 = 41
Numbers can never be negative, instead the surplus is set to 0. If the dad has 0 surplus, the government steps in and pays a certain sum to the child every month, this sum is then becomes a debt for the dad.
-
thruster.. I am the one who said you need to adjust to the child you made.
It is not a puppy... your job is not the only one in the world and... you are the one who made the child. You have an obligation to take care of the mess you made... it is about responsibility for your actions more than "child centric" or whatever.
You keep the job you have.. you both do. you stay in that job or that area until the kid is raised or... opt out and pay the other parent to raise the kid. Or... work out an agreement.. both move say.. or move close.. sheesh.. if you are that inflexable then you are probly unemployable in any case.
If you get rich while you are married.. the spouse deserves half.. they were their.. they were your partner... anything you had before is yours.
you both have equal visitation rites. unless one moves away.. there is no such thing as alimony. child support only exists if one moves away.
It is not complex. the more complex you make it and the more you make it like doing some kind of sleazy tax form.. the more people will divorce and try to game the game..
this is of course all good for divorce lawyers.. just like accountants love complex tax forms... divorce lawyers love complex and unfair divorce laws.
divorce lawyers have a vested interest in seeing more and more divorces.
lazs
-
Sorry lazs, doesn't wash.
Obviously your method is suggested to correct some specific issue of a divorce but it's clear you can't see the can of worms your ideas will open up.
It's good to see you can distinguish between offspring and pets but what you suggest reeks of the hippie mentality that assumes children can somehow be insulated by the breakup of a family. They can't. And the idea that a divorced couple is going to "work out" any agreement be it about custody, geography, or financial splits is naive at best.
The idea of compelling a child to have two separate but equal homes is just dumb. If you take a second to work out the details I'm sure you will tend to agree.
But I'm old school. I believe in keeping promises, honoring commitments and making accommodations for the greater good. The idea that a marriage and family are transient constructs easily abandoned is one that I can't abide. I personally think single parenthood should be a felony, barring widowhood or incarceration. Not very realistic I know but if it were I bet these topics would come up less frequently. And I bet we'd take the idea of family more seriously also.
-
Hortlund, thanks much for your detailed insight. Very helpful.
On Google, one of the best sites I found was one talking about California divorces; the principles probably are similar in most states:
http://californiadivorce.info/index.html
I think the greatest difference in my naive assumptions and the state's viewpoint is this:
I start with the premise that spouse x and spouse y have only so much net income (100%) to be divided, including for child support.
States apparently often start with the premise that children are owed the marriage standard of living even after the spouses divorce. And sometimes if the main support spouse (or ideally both spouses) cannot provide that standard, then the state will pay the difference and hound the support spouse who was supposed to pay the state's idea of what the child was owed.
Kinda like a kid riding in a cart pulled by two horses being transferred to a rickshaw and expecting to go just as far.
The referenced site refers to alimony for half the duration of a marriage lasting 10 years or less, but then gets vague about longer marriages. There is definite emphasis that alimony should not go on forever.
The bad news is anything can happen in a divorce. The good news is anything can happen in a divorce.
Thanks again to all for sharing experiences and perspective.
-
Originally posted by Halo
We know quite a few people who have divorced, and their experiences vary widely as you probably would expect. Another person we know is getting divorced and is asking for advice beyond what will be received from paid mediators, arbitrators, lawyers, and the courts.
A
If your friend is male, and the divorce is hostile, simply direct him to the closest gun store to buy a gun.
For suicide would be a far kinder fate for him to experience.
SIG 220
-
thruster.. I am old school to. you don't just make a kid and then pawn off responsibility for that child with a little cash.
there is nothing unworkable about my plan.. there is no can of worms save to the selfish. there is no need for the parents to agree to anything save in a paralegals office or a court. It simply needs to be fair.
I am far from a hippy. I have no illusions that you can shield children from your or your spouses selfishness.. it is only that you owe them a parent. You owe them your time and pretty much... your life.. till they are grown. at 18 they should then be able to make good choices based on the example of honesty and sacrifice and responsibility that you have given them.
Something has changed.. your way is the real hippy way... when I was growing up maybe 2 kids in the entire school came from divorced homes.
your way is the way that started with the love generation and continues on.. are things getting better? is "if it feels good it must be right" working? Is "my only responsibility to my children is to give money to their mom" working?
Do you think it is a better moral base for children to know their dad gave money every month to their mom and lived a life apart... or.. that he made the sacrifice and was there at least half the time for the growing up?
What lessons are learned by each example? Make enough money to buy your way out of bad situations or... love your children and take responsiblilty.
lazs