23 Jan 10
Originally posted by telerionShould anyone really stay home for prolonged periods of time? If you are lazy, you should face the consequences.
No kidding. It is immaterial whether one can get an education (or develop a career since my arguments includes this dimension as well). The point is that if the married couple made an agreement where one partner would stay at home and let the other one work (or accumulate education), then both parties have made an investment into the future earning ...[text shortened]... air share could be a rather complicated function, but we have actuaries for this sort of thing.
23 Jan 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraWhy are assuming that they are lazy? Again, most people do this to rear kids or to free up the other partner to concentrate their efforts on market labor. Do you know how much it costs to hire some one to clean your house, cook your meals, and babysit your kids?
Should anyone really stay home for prolonged periods of time? If you are lazy, you should face the consequences.
23 Jan 10
Originally posted by telerionI know how much time that costs and you can combine that with a part time job at the very least very easily. Unless you have very young children, maybe.
Why are assuming that they are lazy? Again, most people do this to rear kids or to free up the other partner to concentrate their efforts on market labor. Do you know how much it costs to hire some one to clean your house, cook your meals, and babysit your kids?
23 Jan 10
Originally posted by telerionok, it's looking more and more like slavery, which is banned by the UN.
Watch what you call ridiculous. You sound fatuous.
It doesn't matter if there was a financial barrier or not. The point is that both invested in the human capital of one spouse, therefore both are entitled to some fraction of the returns. Even for a non-economist, I always thought you had enough sense to understand this basic concept.
23 Jan 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraMany marriages have young children. Why would you say that no alimony is deserved in this case?
I know how much time that costs and you can combine that with a part time job at the very least very easily. Unless you have very young children, maybe.
I think that you are greatly underestimating the depreciation in lifetime wage earnings from exiting the labor market to rear a child.
24 Jan 10
Originally posted by KazetNagorraso you think people should procreate and then be able to abandon their responsibility? Child support payments reflect the legal and moral obligation parents have for raising their children, absence from the home does not relieve them of that obligation.
I think any payments after a marriage should be voluntary. Government should make sure that children get what they need. It's good if the parent not raising the children supports their children, but they should not be forced to do so.
24 Jan 10
Originally posted by stokerIn the US the monetary split is 50/50. The custodial parent then recieves support based on a formula (varies from state to state) that considers both their custodial income and the non-custodial parents income. that seems fair to me.
the divorce rate in western world is rising [as well as marrage] does any one think the financial rewards gained [mostly by women] are too generous. As not only a settlement on finances at moment of the marrage decree disolved, but on future, ie money to be paid each month/week until such time, so if you are the recipiant of this why would you live with someone when they just need to live apart and get money for nothing.
24 Jan 10
Originally posted by stokerlooking after a home is a job. emotionally and physically supporting a partner allows the partner to focus on a career. Often times the agreement is that one will work and one will stay at home. After dissolution of marriage, the non-working partner is now years behind froma career standpoint, and should not have to suffer financially because they agreed to be homemakers. any other opinion is likely sourgrapes
i was taking children out of the equation, as i belive the person who raises the child needs suport, but the system at present means if one person worked and the other looked after the home/family, and that person decided to live without the partner they claim financial reward not just on earnings up to the divorce, but on future earnings of the other. Yet th ...[text shortened]... worked for a company and then got fired, would you expect that company to pay you from then on.
24 Jan 10
Originally posted by Eladarnot always, I got the kid in my first marriage
[b]Many marriages have young children. Why would you say that no alimony is deserved in this case?
Who gets the kids? That's right, the woman gets the kids and the guy gets to give his pay check to his x. Nice system.[/b]
24 Jan 10
Originally posted by telerionThe money is not necessary, and often makes it so that women continue to stay at home when they should be working and contributing to society.
Many marriages have young children. Why would you say that no alimony is deserved in this case?
I think that you are greatly underestimating the depreciation in lifetime wage earnings from exiting the labor market to rear a child.