I hope you don't mind, but I decided to start a new thread in order to discuss the logic and numbers of Child Support/Alimony--so as not to hijack another thread.

I would like to explain why I do somewhat subscribe to the theory that the partner who makes more should give more--as it relates to CS/Alimony. Here's my reasoning:

Let's take the gender argument out of this equation. It makes no difference if the partner with the higher income is a male or female. For the sake of my equation, I am going to call my partners A and B, and their children will be 1 and 2.

A and B met when they were young and their income potentials were relatively equal. They both had degrees, and in A's field the entry level income potential was $4,000/mo; in B's field the entry level income potential was $3,000/mo. Thus, as a couple they were earning a total of $7,000/mo and as a couple they made financial decisions together that were in both of their best interests. As a couple, they decided to have a child and 1 was born--now A and B have responsibilites as a couple AND responsibilities to their family. Both A and B continue to work, but they realize that if A were to complete an advanced degree, A's income potential would be greatly increased. So out of their $7,000/mo as a family now, they paid for A's advanced degree. This means that part of the $3,000/mo that B was contributing was going toward improving A, but B willingly contributed that amount because it was to THEIR MUTUAL benefit (or so B thought).

After A completes the advanced degree, A is offered exactly the job A has always wanted, and the income potential (due to the advanced degree) is $6,000/mo. A and B decide together that if A did take the GREAT job, A would not be as available to meet the parenting and family responsibilities. So, as a couple, A and B decide that A will take the great job and B will stay at home and they will have another child--2 is born. B will raise the children and care for the family responsibilities, and B will work and care for the finances of the family. Their income as a couple goes from $7,000/mo to $6,000/mo, but the benefits of staying home, raising their children with their values, and keeping their home the way THEY want it, they agree it is worth it.

Now, their relative contributions to their family are not A=$6,000 and B=$0. They reached this decision together. A would not be able to dedicate the time and energy needed to do that great job if B were not watching the home fires. Their relative contributions are $3,000 each.

Time goes by and A gets a raise to $7,000/mo. Now their relative contributions are $3,500 each. A little more time goes by and 1 and 2 get older. A and B decide that B will go back to work, but since B has been out of the career for a decade, B's income potential was not the maximum income amount. B returned to work at $2,500/mo. Now, as a couple, they are earning a total of $9,500/mo. and their relative contributions are $4,750 each.

Being very logical here only, A is away from the family for long hours and at work with co-workers for long hours, so A has an affair with a co-worker and decides to divorce. The judge says that A's potential to earn income is at least $6500/mo and B's is $2500/mo=$9000/mo together. That means each partner should have income of about $4000/mo. B is given physical custody, so the assumption is that there will be more expenses for 3 people than 1--so the even division of $4000/mo is changed to $3500 and $4500. That means if A owes B about $2000/mo in CS and alimony. But A thinks that the whole $6500/mo income should be A's to keep because it is what A "earns".

Is everyone still with me??

See, this particular scenario could play out just as easily with A being a TypeA female executive, huh?? So gender and all that really has nothing to do with this scenario.

What IS relative is that A would not be earning what A has the potential to earn, if it had not been for B. B contributed to the finances by giving A the freedom to earn it. Now that A wants to leave, and now that A earns at the HIGHEST potential due to B's contributions, A wants to keep all the income A earns.

A earns $7,000/mo and $2,000/mo is taken off the top for CS and Alimony...leaving $5,000/mo. Then taxes are taken out of the $7,000 (at 25% that's $1750 in taxes)...leaving $3,250/mo for the partner who lives alone. But A wants to live in the style of $7,000/mo, and keeps saying that B shouldn't get so much.

B earns $2,500/mo and gets $2,000 in CS/alimony...leaving $4,500/mo. Then taxes are taken out of $2,500 (at 25% that's $625 in taxes)...leaving $3,875/mo for the partner that lives with the kids.

There really is no discrepancy, except that A thinks A earns $7,000 and should be able to keep it all, and B earns $2,500 and can't figure out how A can earn so much more and yet expect B and 1 and 2 (3 people) to survive on less than half!

Here's my opinion, people. A needs to remember that B sacrificed for A's improvement, and B deserves to be compensated financially for that. B needs to remember that A is not a bank. A does not really have all these extra thousands of dollars each month--taxes and CS/Alimony even it out.

Finally, for some B's, it can be a wiser decision to take less in CS/Alimony in order to have more control of their own life and less interaction with an utterly fogged in A. The implications are that B will somehow have to learn to live with a little less--earning $2,500 from the FT job and maybe taking a PT job to make ends meet. Also, sometimes A's are soooo focused on their money that it's worth it to let them have it and earn your own!


CJ

CJ,

Let me look at this, because I'm sure there are some here that would think I'm a reasonable facsimile to spouse A.

Let me throw a monkey wrench, or at least another variable into this.

Let's say spouse A is willing to work on the marriage, but spouse B is unwilling. They live in a no-fault state, and the law is written so that the costs of the divorce are given to the spouse with the greater income.

Oh, and spouse B is also asking for alimony.

Is it fair for spouse A to lose access to the kids (presuming spouse B is the parent with primary custody) in a divorce this person doesn't want, and then has to pay the other spouse while spouse A has a home and the income to support the children.

So I hope you can understand why spouse A might resent others saying what has to be done with the money spouse A earns. Spouse A lost a spouse, unfettered access to the children and has the government taking 20% after taxes from the pay envelope.

And that is why this spouse A is a little more that mildly upset by the whole scenario.

It seems in my scenario, spouse A loses all the way around. There is little chance for me getting custody of my daughter with a half-sister staying with my wife. Since I make 4-5x what W does, there will be NO money coming my way from her pocket book. (Not that I need that or want it, but it's really convenient that she left everything unpleasant, bills, stuff she doesn't want, etc. here, but she does need money every month.) My tax rate goes up, as non-custodial parent, I can't even file Head of Household. Maybe I can deduct my daughter if I get that in the divorce decree. So my marginal tax rate is closer to 41% than it is to 25%, but hey I make a lot more than she does.

Well, after that, she gets 20% in CS according to IL law. I get to pay the legal fees for both sides, the court costs, etc.

Financially, it sucks all around.

Oh yeah, half of our 401K and IRA also goes to her. I don't know if she has considered this or not, but half the debt is hers too, LOL

Tony

<small>[ March 12, 2004, 09:47 PM: Message edited by: javaSansContour ]</small>

OBTW, I forgot to say that was a pretty good cut at what the numbers look like, pretty darn close.

I've seen many spouse B's here who only look at the gross and have no idea what the net really is. I think they would be shocked if they actually knew they had MORE money than their spouse A, even if spouse A has a higher income.

I'm sure there are some complaining spouse B's who don't realize they get more than their spouse A does.

Tony

Wow, that was one big math problem CJ, and I don't do well with math!! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Wink]" src="images/icons/wink.gif" />

Let me tell you my opinion - and remember, this is only my opinion.

(And as a pre-PS before I begin: In the case of a senior citizen or disabled spouse unable to work, my opinion is different)

I don't believe in alimony. Never have.

I can say that, because I've lived it.

I divorced my first H of 20 years and asked for nothing. Nada. Not his wages, not his retirement, not a thing. Why? Because I am an able-bodied healthy woman (well, mostly, at least I was when we divorced, but I digress).

And by the way, I suspect he hid money in the later years of our marriage. He's loaded now. He bought a house for the first time AFTER the divorce, himself a new truck, and more. Yeah, it irks me a bit - but mostly I'm envious.

But one thing he's never said is that his ex-wife is a gold-digging so-n-so who took all his money. I didn't, and I won't.

Child support - it's mandated everywhere, isn't it? I don't see that as as negotiable.

I can say that being on the other side (with my second husband) the only thing that gets tough is when jobs change and less is made by the parent not in the home - we've struggled like you can't believe trying to keep up - and for the most part have been successful. We keep it as a priority, and have given up things and been late on another bill to keep up with that. It's legally and morally the right thing to do.

FaithfulWife

I agree with you completely in the senario that you layed out, However, I also agree with Java and have a few more twists to put on his monke wrench..

What if A never had an A and B never worked but B decided that B wanted to be independent as long as B got enough alimony and CS to continue on without having to chnage life style too much. Still doesn't expect to get a job and feels that,even though A wants to do anything to make M work, B 1,2,3,&4 will be fine without A as long as B keeps getting A's paycheck.

new_beginning
I wish my STBW had you attitude.

WIWH

First, let me remind you all that A is not the husband, and B is not the wife. A is the one who's career was furthered by B's contribution. I personally know of several women (i.e., doctors, nurses, software programmers, lawyers, counselors and professors are all female examples you'all might readily know) where the LADY went to college because the MAN stayed home with the kids while she finished her Masters degree. Now the WIFE is earning a high salary and the HUSBAND is the one who raised the kids and may get CS/Alimony.

Second, I use the term "CS/Alimony" because different states divide it up different ways/allow it/don't allow it/etc. The point is, one spouse is paying the other for their marital income earning potential contribution and for the costs of raising the children they both decided to have. Once again, please note that I do not assume the wife gets the kids, because frankly the wife is not always the better parent!

Finally, this post is just to point out the math of it all. Both spouses complain and feel like they have no money, neither spouse has as much money as when they were cooperatively pooling their funds and earning power and credit, neither spouse as the access to the kids that they used to, and usually, both spouses have about the same or similar amounts of money in their households!

In my own personal life, when I was making my own choices, I walked the walk just like Sheryl. I am a smart, intelligent, resourceful woman and believe in working hard, not taking my ex's money. In all honesty, I believe I could have reasonably asked for alimony, but the cost of alimony is that I would not be free and I would not have peace in my life. To me, the peace was worth so much more than the alimony. It may not be much, but what I own now I OWN. It can never be taken away from me unless I choose to give it away! <img border="0" title="" alt="[Big Grin]" src="images/icons/grin.gif" />

When it came to the children, though I did not hesitate to ask for maximum child support. They are our CHILDREN and it is our responsiblity to provide for them. OURS, not just mine. Frankly, it distressed me to no end that I didn't put up a fight for alimony, and yet he chose to lie and hide income so he'd get lower child support. He hid money so he wouldn't have to give it to his kids, and that pissed me off!!!

BUT..that's neither here nor there.

Generally, I wish that courts would have the person who WANTS the divorce pay for the divorce--no matter who has income. Personally I wish that courts would fine the partner who breaks the marital contract--just as they would fine any other person or business who broke a contract. Personally, I wish that if a spouse chooses to have an affair, the price they pay is to lose their home and kids--I suspect there would be a LOT less affairs!! However, those are WISHES and that would assume that the world is fair, and it just isn't.


CJ

IMO this cannot be resolved as a math problem, partly because there are too many variables and not enough relavant equations.

1. What if the sah(spouse) had the affair? That affair could have been the more or less justified kind due to abuse and neglect etc. by spouse A...or in could have been one due to major shortcomings of the sah. So how does one asses this, and turn it into a math formula?

2. What if no one had an affair, and but one of the spouses (take your pick) was abusive, addictive, neglectful etc. and marital counselling failed to reconcille so one of em insists on divorce?

3. If you introduce the notion a divorcing spouse is gauranteed a substantial alimony that will have a significant (good and bad) impact on divorce strategies....one (bad)being rewarding sah spouses who marry with this in mind.

4. Even if all this were true, and one was gauranteed significant alimony then there would be a rise in prenuptial agreements. (more on that in a minute).

5. It is impossible to assess at an early career stage what someones prospects would have been. Manybe B would have not been very good at what they do, and not had a great income, or their industry downsized (like the IT industry now), etc. You cannot predict 15, 20, 30 years into the future like this.

6. What value do we assign to the benefits of being a sah? Some would be willing to pay the {lost" money for that privledge....not to mention the wear and tear on the working parent....psychologically and maybe physically as well.

7. What about a sah who did a lousy job of child rearing, house keeping, home making...etc.? Can they be "fired"?

8. I also suspect the murder rate of sah spouse would increase, as the less stable "A" decide that since they have no control over their financial well-being they will solve their problem another way.

There are more, but you get the point....it is a bad bad idea for the state to mandate any kind of substantial alimony gaurantee. You get married, you take chances, in many ways, and one of those ways is financially. I suspect that marriages would actually decrease, and living together would be more likely.

However, doing nothing and impoverishing the sah is not ok either, so what should we do...I will write another post on that later.

<small>[ March 13, 2004, 08:04 AM: Message edited by: sufdb ]</small>

Sheryl said,

</font><blockquote><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><hr /><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">I can say that being on the other side (with my second husband) the only thing that gets tough is when jobs change and less is made by the parent not in the home - we've struggled like you can't believe trying to keep up - and for the most part have been successful. We keep it as a priority, and have given up things and been late on another bill to keep up with that. It's legally and morally the right thing to do.</font><hr /></blockquote><font size="2" face="Verdana, Arial">My H left a secure job after he left us for a job from which he was almost immediately laid off. He managed to stay unemployed for over two years, and then took a job that paid about a third of what he used to earn - but that was fine with the courts. As soon as he lost his job, they said it was fine for him to reduce the child support by 70%, and to keep it at that level after he got a job. The court never questioned whether he tried hard enough to find a job that paid anywhere near what he used to earn - I would have understood if his new job had paid maybe even a third less than what he was earning, but the job he decided to take paid about what my daughter right out of college with a liberal arts major was able to earn. The courts don't care that I couldn't possibly support six kids on my income plus the meager amount of child support awarded - the kids didn't stop eating just because the child support decreased. I still had to come up with money to feed, clothe, and house them - and the courts don't care if the custodial parent has to work multiple jobs or go into debt to support the children - but they don't make the non-custodial parent do either. The most important consideration is that the noncustodial parent keep what they consider "enough" to live on - which is usually considered at least 60% of his or income - and the courts don't care what happens to the children. By his own admission to the court, my H has absolutely no expenses except personal ones - he pays no utilities, and no rent or mortgage. In addition, the child support is adjusted for additional children, but only up to 3-4 - children 5, 6 , or more apparently aren't supposed to eat.

I'd been a SAHM and had given up a good job in a field where you become out of date very quickly, but alimony was not even an option for me when he deserted us, because we have so many children according to the legal system that child support would be "so high" that he couldn't possibly afford to pay alimony as well.

Hey, I know this is a bit off topic, but since you good folks seem to know what you're talking about, let me throw this in here. Being as things vary from state to state, can you tell me the best way to find a good divorce attorney, or at least find out what the divorce laws in my (new to me) state are? Any resource guidelines would be most helpful. I suppose I could just shell out the cash to someone for a one hour appointment and find out, but I don't even know what questions to ask. Sad it's gotten to this point, but I need to start informing myself. I hope I don't disturb the nature of the thread, the numbers are truly relative to this kind of momentous undertaking. Thanks!

As good as i t gets,

I cant't answer your questions because I have the same, but it sounds to me like you have a good topic for a new thread.

I know I'll be in on it!

WIWH