Should Alimony Be Re-Thought?
Many states are reconsidering spousal support.
There was a very interesting story in a recent Wall Street Journal around the ancient right of alimony, money one ex-spouse (usually the man) pays to the other after a divorce.
The gist of the grist is that several states are currently reevaluating the way they handle spousal support. Alimony came into prominence in the US in the 60s and 70s in lockstep with an increase in divorce. In some states people can receive alimony for their entire life, even after they've remarried.
Proponents say the money compensates some spouses who have sacrificed careers for families and is particularly vital to low- and middle-income women. Detractors have long called the laws unfair in an age when many women work, with people making payments for years that their former spouses don't really need.
At the core of alimony debate is whether the payments are viewed as transitional—until the dependent spouse gets back on his or her feet—or a long-term dividend for sacrifices made during a marriage.
But, as the Journal points out, some of these cases skirt what can be described only as "fairness." For instance, one couple divorced after 17 years of marriage and agreed to split their communal property and promised to forego any future payments. But things didn't go according to plan for the lady half of the couple, and 25 years later she won alimony from her now-remarried ex-husband to the tune of $400 per week. The Journal runs through a handful of similarly bizarre cases to illustrate the need for reform (one even included a man living on his ex's dole).
Some judges evaluate cases on a need basis and would rather have an ex inconvenienced than make someone tap into public assistance. Many payers of alimony also are going back to court as the recent economic downturn has made old agreements no longer sustainable. Read: 10 Down And Dirty Divorce Tricks
While an equitable distribution of assets is fair and right, the system is not working correctly. Of course, almost every law can be subverted by a clever counselor or an inept member of the court. And, of course, our culture is built on double standards and instances of what's right for the goose is no good for the gander. (Did you know some people look down upon women who wantonly have sex with many men, while admiring men who do the same?) In these strange alimony cases it seems as if fairness and generosity got beat up by bitterness and a sense of entitlement. Americans reject the idea that someone can ever take a step backwards in standard of living. Maybe, as things are reevaluated, more of an emphasis should be put on revising each scenario on a case-by-case basis.
Interesting facts about alimony:
Discussion
I support alimony, sometimes it should be life long and sometimes it should be conditional. Alimony awarded should be reasonable and make sense to the given situation. To often family court judges use the same stick to measure each case. There are obviously cases in which alimony has been abused but I believe that is the court system largely ignoring it's responsibility.
There are no absolutes here but I do know that the spouse that gives up career advancement to take care of the hearth and home enables the "bread winning" spouse to suceed in there career and the detriment to their own future earning potential.
Most career advancement is made between 25-40.... exactly when most people have to make the choice between a fast track career or taking care of the children. Even those of us that work full time often have to choose what is called the "mommy track" in order to have the freedom to take care of our families. It means we have to leave at 5pm to get to the daycare to pick up the baby while our coworker that doesn't have kids or has a spouse that does that stays and works until 6:30.... who do you think will advance faster.
I support life-long alimony, although not in all cases. Here's why:
1. Most women (and some men) will cut back on their careers in order to take care of their children. Taking care of children is not a bad thing to do. Children are our future. No one should be penalized for doing something that benefits everyone. However, the end result is that usually one spouse's earning power or career will never be as strong as it would be otherwise. Meanwhile the other spouse typically forges ahead. The primary wage-earner ends up with more earning power forever. This doesn't matter unless you get divorced. It's only fair that the spouse who has gained earning-power should pay something to the other person. Unless the spouse with lower earning power catches up somehow, this could end up being forever.
2. In most states, you can get a divorce against the other person's wishes and without them doing anything wrong. Marriage is an economic contract, not just a promise to love someone. The longer you live together, the more you make economic decisions together and think as an economic unit. (This is a great advantage so long as you stay together.) So you might support someone while they go to school, move or travel for their job, work in a lower-paying field, etc. Again, this is not a problem unless you get divorced. But it's not fair if the other person can just decide they don't feel like being married to you and break all the agreements you're counting on for your financial future. So unless we're going to get rid of unilateral no-fault divorce, I think we have to allow alimony. It's just a way of acknowledging the economic part of the contract.
I know there are lots of people who don't merge finances because they might get divorced. That's fine, they won't need alimony. But I think we need to support the people who want a marriage where you act together economically.
