Permanent alimony seems silly to me. If I’m married for 10 years and get a divorce, why should I have to pay alimony for the next 40+ years?
I’m not opposed to alimony though. My in-laws just got divorced. They were married for like 20 years and during that time my father in law owned a business and wanted his wife to stay at home and take care of the house, kids etc. Now that they are divorced she has no career or equity and is in her 50s so starting one from nothing is a huge challenge. So there are fringe cases out there where it makes sense.
I don’t know. I don’t like DeSantis so as a reaction I want to be like “this is a dumb thing to do” but I just don’t know.
So in effect this change means that trade will no longer be possible. At least not to the same degree. Everyone splits everything equitably and goes their separate way, plus some alimony but not lifetime. Seems reasonable to me.
Well at 60, she and her husband have been saving for their retirement for 40 years already, so she’ll use that to retire early. Plus she’ll have at least half of all other assets too. Probably more if she’s disabled as in your example and unable to work at all.
Or do you believe that the husband should be unable to retire to find her lifestyle in perpetuity?
So I don’t really know how to feel about this.
Permanent alimony seems silly to me. If I’m married for 10 years and get a divorce, why should I have to pay alimony for the next 40+ years?
I’m not opposed to alimony though. My in-laws just got divorced. They were married for like 20 years and during that time my father in law owned a business and wanted his wife to stay at home and take care of the house, kids etc. Now that they are divorced she has no career or equity and is in her 50s so starting one from nothing is a huge challenge. So there are fringe cases out there where it makes sense.
I don’t know. I don’t like DeSantis so as a reaction I want to be like “this is a dumb thing to do” but I just don’t know.
deleted by creator
According to the article, permanent alimony is granted only if the receiver agrees to give up other assets in exchange. So it’s more of a trade.
So in effect this change means that trade will no longer be possible. At least not to the same degree. Everyone splits everything equitably and goes their separate way, plus some alimony but not lifetime. Seems reasonable to me.
At what point are you imagining this 60 year old woman with no work experience is going to be able to support herself?
Well at 60, she and her husband have been saving for their retirement for 40 years already, so she’ll use that to retire early. Plus she’ll have at least half of all other assets too. Probably more if she’s disabled as in your example and unable to work at all.
Or do you believe that the husband should be unable to retire to find her lifestyle in perpetuity?
Wow, than the receiving party must had one hell of a squeeze on the giving party. If you are willing to pay for the rest of your life for some asset…
deleted by creator
A broken clock being right twice a day still means you shouldn’t be using the clock to tell time lol.
Even when it does happen to be right… You should be taking it with a huuuuuuge… Huuuuuuuuuuge grain of salt and probably look for another clock lol.
It wasn’t right through logic. It was right because of luck and entropy lol.