Are You A Government Virgin? (A Post About Orwellian Alimony Terms)
People tend to assume government is good -- and fair -- until they or someone they know has dealings with the government.
Then they realize the Orwellian absurdity that government often is. (And sorry to drag that word out again so soon after the last time, but that's the time we're living in -- more and more Orwellian.)
Just one is example is a man in New Jersey, John Waldorf, who sits in jail while unable to pay court-ordered alimony that exceeds his entire income (as stated in the article by Bruce Eden, the civil rights director of an organization called DADS -- Dads Against Discrimination).
Lillian Shupe writes in the Hunterdon County Democrat:
Waldorf, who divorced his wife of 11 years in 2011, was ordered to pay $2,000 a week in alimony to his ex. That amounts to $104,000 a year. In addition he was ordered to pay $3,300 in child support. The problem is that Waldorf has only been taking home about $90,000 a year on average, according to Eden. Eden said he has Waldorf's tax returns dating back to 2000. The highest income reported by Waldorf during the marriage was $147,000 before taxes according to Eden. In most years Waldorf made $90,000 to $120,000 before taxes. His average take home pay has been about $90,000 a year.The alimony payments are in addition to about $100,000 in legal fees incurred during the divorce process.
It now also appears Waldorf has lost his job because of his jailing. Meanwhile, Waldorf's ex-wife, who is disabled, has been getting nothing, all while taxpayers are footing the bill to feed and house him as long as he remains in jail.
Eden also questioned Judge Hany Mawla's motives for keeping Waldorf in jail. He said before Mawla became a judge (he) was involved in Woman Against Family Assault. Eden said his role with the group creates a prejudice that should prevent Mawla from being in family court.
...Eden said Waldorf is essentially being jailed for his debt, which he said is unconstitutional.
Eden got to know Waldorf through NJ Alimony Reform, a group that is lobbying to change the alimony rules in New Jersey.
The group hopes to eliminate permanent or lifetime alimony and restrict the wide discretion judges have in setting alimony payments. Massachusetts became the most recent state to update its alimony rules to bring them in line with modern circumstances. New Jersey's laws were written when most women did not work outside the home and had no means of support in the event of a divorce, according to the group's web site.
A comment from the site:
PassionForIndependence
I am a young professional woman. I don't pay alimony or receive alimony. In 2012, I can't believe any former spouse actually believes it is their right to take funds from an ex spouse to sustain living. More importantly, I can't believe there are draconian NJ laws that support that way of thinking. This is all about INDIVIDUAL CHOICES. Marriage is a choice. Having children is a choice. Being uneducated and dependent, is a choice. Acts leading to divorce are choices. No one is forced to do anything. The expectation of someone else being ordered to pay (alimony) for an individuals decisions, is ludicrous. This is big girl and big boy time. It's time for divorcees collecting alimony, to take accountability for their own decisions. Just like a job, once the position is terminated so do the benefits. Once a marriage ends, so do the perks of the marriage.
Times have changed, as a matter of fact, a long time ago. It's foolish to give up everything and depend on one person. Is alimony a generation gap thing, a greed thing, a state culture thing? I just can't wrap my mind around it. For decades women and men have been raised to get an education and be self-reliant, therefore, it must be a greed thing. A gold digger thing. I don't have any friends that think that it's a man's job to take care of them. This way of thinking is so foreign to me and therefore, shocking. The last time I checked, this is the United States; the birthplace of Women's Lib. I didn't even know that alimony still existed, until I met the man in NJ who later became my husband. NJ, with all do respect, get with the times.
Another comment from the site -- and remember that there's a difference between alimony and money to support your children (child support):
tuffbrk
Personally, I think TX is the state that all states should use as their alimony model. When you're only paying for 3-5 years, you can get through it. When it's for life? Really, what's the point of getting up in the morning when you're paying your ex more than you're taking home?
And an exchange:
forumfun
Without reading hundreds of posts, has anyone asked why if a woman is married and her husband's income drops, she has to live within the constraints of that income while if she is divorced she gets to keep living a higher lifestyle than her husband? Is that one of the reasons when a major plant shuts down the local divorce rate jumps? I still want MY money says the princess?tuffbrk
I've asked the question over and over. Although I prefer alimony recipient than "woman" as I'm a woman paying alimony. It's almost as if the alimony recipient becomes a protected class insulated from the reality of life in today's economy.I also object to judges trying to figure out if it is temporary or permanent. What difference does it make? No one pays the wage earner the difference between their former salary and unemployment or temp/perm disability until they get back to work so why is temporary vs permanent an issue? The state knows what the alimony payer is receiving from them don't they?! If there's less money, there's less money. Common sense and the use of technology (for good) is just too much to ask for apparently.
via ifeminists
I understand alimony, I'm ok with it for temporary reasons. Marriage is not the same thing as employment, you are both making an agreement on equal footing and regarding personal emotions, children, property, lives. It's important to have an impartial judge as technically both parties agreed one spouse would not work and thus be handicapped in the working sector.
Again alimony should be temporary, 1-4 years. You can not expect to marry someone, give them power over your entire life and expect to come clean out of the divorce. Both parties made "assumed" promises signing the document.
Purplepen at December 12, 2012 10:51 PM
The whole system is messed up. However I do think it is necessary at times to impute income to people. My ex-SIL quit her job "spend more time with the kids because they needed her in these stressful times" (not an exact quote but close) The judge noted she had not even been working full time and counted her has having that income for divorce related calculations.
My brother calculated that if he did nothing...quit his job and just slept on a friends couch... he would be no worse off financially. And when it actually came time to be it worse. They had an almost equal split. She got all this money for child support (as well as alimony) yet my brother then had to buy clothes and food for this kids while they were at his house...actually it ended up being my parents since he had almost no money left over.
The Former Banker at December 12, 2012 11:58 PM
Take away alimony (which can go to either gender) and you will eliminate stay at home parents. Kids with stay at home parents do better on every metric. Eliminating htem seems counterproductive.
I wouldn't be staying home if DH could up and leave me with no job and no applicable updated skills to get one because I have been caring for our kids while he works every hour needed to advance in his career.
Obviously this case is absurd. But passionforindependence is absurd and if every adult thought that way society would be in for hell, as government would end up actually raising kids. Already plenty of working women seem to think it's the government's job to provide them with good quality affordable daycare. I'd rather a woman (or man) depend on the person they married than on all taxpayers.
momof4 at December 13, 2012 5:50 AM
I'm afraid that I'm headed for this as well. Just finished a long divorce process that I went through without an attorney because I couldn't afford one. The money I am ordered to pay each month leaves me with nearly nothing once my own expenses are taken care of. She's living high on the hog and I'm barely scraping by. This story scares the life out of me even though since she took the kids and split two years ago, I've been slinging money at her left and right for fear of repercussions from my chain of command.
Joe at December 13, 2012 8:48 AM
Again alimony should be temporary, 1-4 years.
I agree, and while recieving alimony the person getting it should still provide chores around the house and sex to the person paying it
Marraige the only contract where on side can renege on every obligation and still expect a huge cash settlement
lujlp at December 13, 2012 9:03 AM
Alimony makes sense in a case like momof4's where a couple makes the decision together that one will give up their career to stay home and raise children. Should they divorce, the stay at home parent could receive alimony until the children are in school and for a few years after to upgrade their schooling or restart their career.
Situations where the alimony is more that the person's take home pay or go on forever are ridiculous. They seem to be at the whim of the judge.
When I was going to court for my divorce, my lawyer was explaining the likely result for the various family court judges. For the last one, he just stood there shaking his head. I asked him what happens if we got this particular judge. He told me to fall on the floor and fake a heart attack. I think he was kidding.
Steamer at December 13, 2012 9:22 AM
never marry.
It has become that simple. There are no advantages, so why would you do it?
SwissArmyD at December 13, 2012 9:32 AM
"Alimony makes sense in a case like momof4's where a couple makes the decision together that one will give up their career to stay home and raise children. "
If the couple makes that decision, then it shoudl be part of a legally enforceable pre-nup, and neither party should be able to break that pre-nup unilaterally. And that incluides leaving the marriage. Both spouses should have to agree to the divorce. That's the only kind of contract hat means anything
"Take away alimony (which can go to either gender) and you will eliminate stay at home parents. Kids with stay at home parents do better on every metric. Eliminating htem seems counterproductive."
Only as long as we are talking about the specific kind of alimony regime you live under, which is in Texas. Texas does this right. You have a set number of years after the divorce to become self-supporting. It should have nothing to do with maintaining anyone's stautus as a stay at home parent. The divorce put and end to that status and that arrangement. After all, where is it written that the stay-at-home parent automatically gets custody anyway?
Jim at December 13, 2012 11:12 AM
never marry.
Right now I'm taking care of my . . . what? Girlfriend sounds like a prom date, well, whatever. My friend. We'll go with that.
Anyway, she hurt her leg quite badly and is looking as six weeks of hobbling around, unable to drive her car, etc. If we were married I could use some of my eight-hundred plus hours of sick time to help her (don't get sick much myself). If we were a same sex couple I could do the same thing, but because our relationship is not registered with the state, I have to use another time off account, and there's only five days in that.
So, marriage has some advantages. We're both in our mid fifties and are wise to the ways of the world. I guess should the time come it would be better for us to be married, we'd have a prenup. Probably would insist upon it.
Steve Daniels at December 13, 2012 3:39 PM
"Take away alimony (which can go to either gender) and you will eliminate stay at home parents. Kids with stay at home parents do better on every metric. Eliminating htem seems counterproductive."
No because there is child support. WHat may end is many of the divorces or shopping for other states to divorce in.
People didn't give up careers to marry they changed careers to taking care of homes. Which going by how much my neighbor is paying someone to take care of the home of his aged mother, it can be a quite lucrative career.
Joe J at December 13, 2012 6:38 PM
Talk to any man that hates and/or mistrusts women as a whole. Odds are good that either he will have gone through this, or someone close to him will have.
Doubt me? Fine, but riddle me this one batman, why do you think people cheered when Chris Rock said in his routine:
"If you make 20 million and she takes ten, you ain't hurtin...but you only make 20,000...you might have to kill er."
There is a broader social implication here than what happens to the individual. When you convince enough men that they have no reason to defend women, no reason to care what happens to them, no reason to trust that a child is theirs or that they can marry and have a wife that won't walk with half their life and leave them in debt...
Don't pretend even for a moment that a cultural shift like that won't have profoundly negative consequences for women, children, or men themselves.
I remember something that got posted here quite awhile back, about a man who just out of nowhere started beating up a girl that was minding her own business outside of a restaurant, wearing a mascot outfit for the place, and a crowd of people just watched it happen. A hundred years ago he'd have taken multiple bullet wounds and died on the spot. Even 40 years ago he'd have gotten the hell beaten out of him by a crowd of angry men and he'd be lucky to be alive.
Now, you have otherwise rational and decent people that "get" why OJ killed his ex.
You can go on and on about exceptions to the rule, you can point out (rightly) that there are examples of the reverse happening in similar arenas, and you might even be accurate...but that makes things worse, not better.
Robert at December 13, 2012 7:36 PM
never marry.
Doesn't always matter. Where I live, you are considered de facto married for legal purposes after two years cohabitation.
Whether that matters depends a lot on whether there are kids and other circumstances of course.
Ltw at December 14, 2012 1:07 AM
> Where I live, you are considered de facto
> married for legal purposes after two years
> cohabitation.
If you live long enough, you'll meet a late-middle-aged cohabiting couple from the working class in which the woman is in some kind of months-long crisis, financial or medical. And the partner will be standing there with a sad look on his face, as if there's nothing he can do about it, because it's every man for himself, y'know?
No matter how many pathetic things you encounter in your life, you'll never forget the odor of that one.
Fuckit: Fish or cut bait. You're for real or you're not.
Crid [Cridcomment at Gmail] at December 14, 2012 6:16 AM
Amy Alkon
http://www.advicegoddess.com/archives/2012/12/13/are_you_a_gover.html#comment-3517385">comment from Joe JJonathan, thanks for describing that piece from Solzhenitsyn's novel. Part of my ire at where we've come comes from my reading, as a girl, novels about Russia and Nazi Germany. I thought things like, "How great that nobody can ask us for our 'papers' here..."
How tragic that we've gone the places we have, and continue the march to a police state.
Amy Alkon
at December 14, 2012 6:28 AM
"Talk to any man that hates and/or mistrusts women as a whole." I see it a bit differerntly, I see it the family court system in the name of fairness, handcuffs the one person, gives the other person a tazer and a loaded gun, then says play fair. With groups who claim to want equality, saying yeah thats fair. So the women who then use that tazer in a custody/divorce fight. Not honorable but human. In a fight where emotions are raging and things go ugly, when you have such a clear advantage, most humans use it. Human nature, so I don't hate them. Distrust a bit.
But I do hate /distrust those groups and those who claim to support them, who claim this is equality and fairness.
If you want fairness in custody, go with the one cuts the other chooses rule. One exspouse decides the amount of child support the other decides which spouse gets the kids. When people realize they have to live under the rules they create they become much more reasonable.
Joe J at December 14, 2012 7:30 AM
Leave a comment