They say it doesn't. And after what I went through in my marriage I tend to agree. But, would you consider a serious long term relationship w/someone who made substantially less than your spouse? Would you marry someone knowing it meant a big lifestyle change once the alimony runs out?

Frankly, I would be wary of marrying someone who accepted alimony in her divorce settlement.

While there can be circumstances, I am unable to think of any that indicate a good match for me.

Yes and no. The $ doesn't matter but expectations and spending habits do. I am not a material person, but money became a big problem in my marriage because WH wanted to live a lifestyle that we couldn't afford. In addition, I make almost twice as much as him so there were some ego issues thrown in the mix. Too few people talk about finances before they get married.

Enlighten, you've made an interesting comment. Would you please explain your reasoning.

Starving, are you asking if a person should consider getting involved with someone makes considerably less than your ex?

I'll take a stab at what I think you getting at. You where accustomed to a certain life style while married. Now that you're divorced you're getting alimony which allows a certain level of your previous living standard. This will run out & you will not be able to maintain that same level. So, should you get involved with someone who can not maintain that style for you?

Short answer: If you want to live a certain life style be prepared to have a career that can afford you that. Don't depend on another for your desire to live a certain way.

I value someone who is able to take care of themselves. I understand that someone may have been a SAHM for years and was left by a horrible husband. What I cannot understand is how someone can let themselves become so dependent on another person that they are awarded alimony.

Alimony basically is the statement that this person is unable to take care of herself financially, even for a temporary period of time, so we are going to have the husband care for her for a number of years.

Where was the couples savings, that they could split and she could use that to suppliment her income until she returns to work or goes from under-employed to full potential?

It often indicates a great income disparity.

Do I really want to marry another woman who makes a lot less that I do. Frankly, as a man, there is little financial upside. If she cheats, like my last wife did, she still gets to take 1/2 of what we made during the marriage without regard to her findelity.

Today (accounting for the possibility that my view may change) I would want a pre-nup that indicates that a cheating spouse, husband or wife, should they chose to not end an affair and rebuild the marriage, would agree before marriage that the assets belong to the marriage, and not to any one party. So any children, money, homes, property, whatever, born or obtained during the marriage become the property of the faithful partner. If you leave, you leave with only what you entered with, nothing more.

If you cheat, and refuse to reconcile, you are saying that you don't want the marriage or anything produced during the marriage.

This is different from the tradition pre-nup where you are trying to protect the more wealthy party. Instead, I see it more as setting up the consequences for breaking the vows in advance, in a legally binding way.

I realize that has gone off track a bit, but it basically indicates that I would have a hard time with someone who is not a self-reliant woman, able to take care of herself.

I agree with your last statement, if the person wants a lifestyle, and they are not married, then they should make enough to support that lifestyle, WITHOUT debt and the ability to save a significant chunk for the future or for unforseen circumstances.

Money touches all aspects of our lives, so I’d say it is naïve to believe it doesn’t matter.

But, it has less to do with the amount, and more to do with attitudes. Saver vs. spender, risk-adverse vs. risk-taker, how much debt, and what are the priorities when it comes to spending it?

As Dave Ramsey says, “There are only three things you can do with money: Save it, spend it, or give it away.”

All that said, I think it would be hard for anyone to take a permanent cut in their standard of living. Temporary, while a couple gets their feet on the ground or is building up, is fine because you have the end goal. A permanent change with no chance of getting back to where you were, now that’s hard unless you hated your previous life.

In “hating your previous life,” I mean much more than hating your spouse. I mean hating your entire lifestyle, from job, house, social interaction on down the line. I don’t know how often that happens.

For some reason, people rarely seem to have the same concerns about increasing their standard of living. LOL.

Me, personally? I have money issues. I feel very uneasy with the idea of a man supporting me, especially now. If I were to get used to nifty things like trips to Paris, it may be harder to get out of a bad relationship. And lord knows how long I struggled before I got out of my marriage!

BTW, in no way shape or form, am I endorsing marrying men or women for money.

On the other hand, from what I’ve observed, it is difficult for men (in general) when their wives make more money than they do.

It’s all too too difficult.

Enlightened:
I am in a unique situation where I will be in a better financial position w/o WH. However, many women I know have delayed their education and worked low paying jobs to help get H through college or started in a business. They then spend several years as SAHM, often at H's insistance. This is a tough job, not sitting back and relaxing. However, these women can't just go get a job to replace X's support. We also live in a day where many people live from paycheck to paycheck so there is usually not a cushion of savings. Alimony helps them go back to school, work up in a company, maintain a stable enviroment for children, etc. I know that my state requires 10yrs of marriage for alimony.

I sense a lot of anger at your X. It seems like you feel taken advantage of like I do with my WH. Problem is that we allowed them to do it, so we have to take some responsiblity in that as well. I do agree with you on prenumps, especially when children are involved.

But why do people live that way?

No one has to live paycheck to paycheck.

But they have to make the choices not to, from the get-go.

Ok, some do, because of a dibilitating personal crisis or natural disaster.

However, I can still remember high-school 100 years ago, when the kids thought is was more cool to just skate by, than to do their best and get A's in class.

So now they are under-employed because they skated through geometry or pre-calc, or are unable to craft a coherent paragraph because English and Grammar was boring.

I'm sure there are women who put their husbands through school. There are also guys like me who waited until I was almost 31 to get married.

I never said a SAHM didn't work. What I said is, I'm concerned about those choices. I don't see a lot of new grads or new business owners driving 10 year old cars, or living in modest homes.

No-one has forced people to refinance their homes and get deeper into debt. These are all choices.

Perhaps a SAHM is the right gal for another man. Just because I say I'm not sure I'd want a lady who wanted to or had to take alimony from her ex-husband, doesn't mean she is not the right gal for another guy.

I too, like you, am in much better financial position without my ex-wife. Paying $1K/month in CS for my DD is much cheaper than having her around.

She is not a dumb woman, she is very bright. However, we differ on the whole gratification issue. I prefer to save and spend modestly. She makes 1/5 to 1/4 of what I make in wages, yet lives in an apartment that is 1.4X the cost of my mortgage, including all escrows. Plus, I get to deduct the interest and taxes I pay, so my effective cost of living is lower, and I have an bigger, nicer place to live.

I was easily able to cut MORE than $1k/month in expenses out of the budget when she left, considering her cell phone, car payment, lower utilities (in the same home we all lived in) dropped the DirecTV, stopped the montly bottled water, no more car insurance for her, health club membership she wanted and never used, and of course, no more credit card debt.

I do take responsibility, and frankly, I was cutting off the gravy train BEFORE her affair, as I was trying to get a handle on the debt.

I encourage everyone to get their education before they get married. If possible, seek a partner who has a similiar education and a similar income.

Great disparities in either of these areas seems to be a potential for resentment.

How in the world does one force one’s spouse to cut spending, or be more fiscally responsible? Probably, those that can convince or persuade their spouses, don’t find themselves in divorce court quite as often as those of us who can’t.

I’m sort of torn about pre-nupts. I had one, and it saved me. My divorce would be quagmired in his business if I didn’t have one. As is, I walk out with what I came in with, plus gifts and inheritance. He walks out with what he came in with. To save dealing with his business, I’m keeping the equity in the house and he’s keeping the build up in his inventory/business.

However, after having been married, I think pre-nupts are a bad idea unless there are children or other family members that need protection. In cases where there are large amounts of money, there usually is a settlement of some money on the party who is signing away his/her rights. Otherwise, the agreement can be broken in many states.

Enlightened,

I'm all for prenups that penalize A's.

Just wanted to address the alimony issue. I think if the WS makes more $, then he or she should pay alimony. Why? Well, because the WS broke the vows/agreement/contract, and the BS should not have to live with reduced savings/income because of the bad acts of their WS. I also don't like the idea of letting the WS use that $ to fund an A or inappropriate R. Hope I explained that well enough.

By the way, I did not get alimony because our M was too short. I make a decent living and I manage my $ well. I can't even calculate how much an A costs a BS in terms of $ alone, not to mention the emotional cost. Many BS have to change jobs or lose jobs as a result of the whole mess, and the courts are unlikely to award damages for this. So, if a BS gets alimony, then I'm all for it. It seems like a small contribution to making the BS as "whole" as possible, as that term is used in the law & courts. One more thing, even my exWH now admits that I was a great W and that the A was all about him and not about me or our M or unmet needs. I didn't break the agreement or hurt him, yet I'm the one disadvantaged.

Enlightened,

I was a SAHM, I tried to get a savings started, my now ex-h didn't like my saving money, he took it as a threat to him, and accused me of trying to save up to divorce him. So therefore we HAD NO SAVINGS!!

The portion of inheritance I set aside after my mother died, he took as a threat of the same thing.

If I wanted to work outside the home, he beleived it was because I wanted to 'meet' someone else.

When we divorced, I didn't get alimony and I had been a SAHM for 11 years, and my and my childrens stand of living dropped tremendously.

But back to the orginal topic, Why is the money so important to you?

what does the money afford you to do now that you wouldn't be able to do otherwise?

And I guess another important question would be is, is money ultimately more important than the relationship?

I mean, if a person makes less money but yet you are ultimately happier does it matter if your standard of living drops a bit?

Is it that you 'need' the things in order to BE happy? Or are the 'things' somehow filling an unmet emotional need inside yourself?

[color:"blue"]Enlightened, [/color]
I feel that you made a statement that is just too broad, and cannot be applied to every alimony case. If that figures as one of your criteria for "a match", you may be passing opportunities by with that type of thinking.

In my case, H and I have worked while raising kids. We did have savings, and investments, and a house that in this area is considered upper class. We were very grounded financially. He and I both look at the alimony he pays in several ways:
1) As [color:"blue"] neverthesame [/color] said, he broke his vows and I shouldn't have to live with reduced savings/income because of that

2) I contributed GREATLY (by having a job, typing his papers, etc.) to his undergrad, graduate, and half of his PhD degrees (he left mid-PhD). This was, in many ways, my investment for MY future.

3) Our incomes will be quite diverse once his PhD is finished. While my job is somewhat low-paying, it has high benefits and also great flexibility. Why should I have to make changes if they're not necessary?

4) Alimony allows him to make payments...I didn't want to bankrupt him while getting what was due to me. (I also got a small lump sum figure). So in a way, you could say alimony benefits the giver as much as the receiver.

5) Different states have different standards and practices. Where I live, it's not uncommon to get alimony, especially if one fits the some of the criteria established by the court.

I hope this helps broaden your understanding. Please don't look down on me because I accept alimony <img src="/ubbt/images/graemlins/smile.gif" alt="" />
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[color:"blue"] Starving [/color] - In answer to your question, I think money does sometimes matter; it definitely should be discussed prior to any major commitment. Not just cuz you'd lose the alimony, but different people come from different backgrounds, and it just makes sense to be on the same page. I also don't think that once you're married, you necessarily have to pool All your funds.

I grew up in a home without much money. Single mom and all that jazz.

I worked for what I have. I've lived both ways and prefer to live with enough money that I don't worry about not having money and not so much that I worry about losing it all.

I'm not saying money is more important than a relationship. However, I am saying that finding a partner who is essentially my equal and with a similar outlook is important.

It's a subtle distinction, so I hope you can see it.

I recognize that such "discrimination" is perhaps an opportunity lost.

We all do such things. Some men want women who are their financial equals. Some women want men will full heads of black hair and blue eyes

I want to know, how does me saying I prefer to select a partner who is not reciving alimony looking down on someone? I think you are filling in an attitude for me that I don't have.

I have a preference, not a prejudice. To say otherwise is a DJ on your part, right?

My father left my mother when I was a teen, so I understand.

Heck I even bought my own home as a single mom, in which my ex-h wanted me to sell within a few months of marriage so that we could move to another state and live next door to his parents, in a trailer park.

I was working when we married, and he didn't want me working, so I sacrificed my career, I certainly didn't want to sacrifice my home as well.

Yet, he would never consider having the home refinanced to have his name put on the mortage nor even consider renting it out to make that move (giving me some form of income), which ultimtely worked to my benefit in the divorce, because he couldn't touch the house when he filed, and he did try to get it.



I know, I was asking that of the Original poster.


To which I understand completely, my current husband is all for building a savings up. He's worked since he was like 12 years old, and his parents kept his paycheck. So he has been supporting himself financially since he was a child, and his parents never put anything into savings, nor allowed him to out of his own pay.

There can be tax implications that make it better for the parties to call all or part of the payment to the wife "alimony" instead of "child support." Child support and alimony are taxed differently for the payer and the recipient.

Ruling someone out as a date because her divorce settlement stipulates that her payment be reported to the IRS as alimony seems odd. But, to each his own.

hoopsie,

Wow, you bent what I said so much, you can't really be talking about what I said, can you?

I do understand the tax advantages in certain situations. We have "non-specified" payments in IL as an option.

To me, it was pretty clear that I'm not talking about such tax manuverings, but someone who must or chooses to remain dependent on an ex-spouse for a period of time for their personal support, not the support of children born out of the marriage.

If this wasn't clear before, I hope it is patently clear now.

In my experience, people who receive alimony fall into two categories: 1) custodial mothers whose support payments may be structured partly as alimony for tax purposes. Payments may cease upon maturity of children, or they may continue if it is clear that the woman will have to remain underemployed because of child-rearing demands;

2) older women with high-earning husbands. Such women may have worked at some point while raising children as teachers, nurses, office staff, etc., and are capable of supporting themselves in the strictest sense -- they will not be eating cat food in the dumpster -- however, their ex-husbands will have a far, far greater standard of living even after marital property is divided, simply because a $500K surgeon will have a better standard of living than a $30K teacher. And, usually, the husband is a surgeon in part because his wife had the family-friendly teacher schedule that helped him pursue a surgical career, helped put him through medical school, etc.

I really don't view either of these cases as unwonted dependency, rather as the women getting what they are entitled to as custodial parents or as long-term participants in a economic partnership.

Even if these women were the unfaithful spouse?