Forum Replies Created
-
AuthorPosts
-
scaredyclassic
ParticipantLifetime alimony potential exists in many states.
only a few states have outlawed it.
You may get married in calif. but can you be certain you’ll be divorced here?
ParticipantI like having them around in stacks.
ParticipantThe courts can force a divorced wage earner to work or be thrown in jail for contempt. It’s not slavery. It’s the way it works. The system…
Participant[quote=Blogstar]Based on 50 years of observation I have decided that if I knew pretty much anyone very well I would see that they are really not in a position to judge what other people do. We are all so easy to disqualify from that role.
On this thread some people expressed the idea that friends and family would be “mean” to stay at home dads, I think only a person who doesn’t have any friends could say that. What kind of family is that? With my friends I am sure that amongst ourselves we judge each other or have some jealousies at times , but it isn’t like we torture each other over differences. My main feeling is that my friends want me to be well and happy and be in their lives. My brothers and sisters seem to always have been more or less proud of me…but if they weren’t , hey too bad.
There are only two people in a relationship that have to see the value of what the other person brought and brings to the relationship/family and does. That said, in terms of the way we do things,I have gotten pretty good feedback/treatment and most of the direct negativity has been in my own head. My in-laws are probably a little bewildered but they can see we are doing at least as good of a job as they did. It is going a lot better than many people who are dependent on two incomes or compelled to have two full time incomes. Not that some aren’t doing fine. A lot of families under duress by that though. Recently, a elderly woman who works at the local hardware store and is also my neighbor, announced to the other employees around and to anyone else nearby, ” here is the worlds greatest SAHD!”. I know a lot of people feel that way, or positive about it anyway, not many men who are not my close friends probably, but I think most men have too much “jerk” in them anyway. Maybe that’s unfair but It doesn’t appear reasonable to expect much from the typical guy on this one.[/quote]
we see one of our kids as a potentially great SAHD. I wouldn’t be disappointed in him. I do kinda feel he shouldn’t try to maximize a deferred comp agreement but instead keep his hand in moneymaking skills. But maybe I should look into prenuptial contracts.
I’d be proud of him if it worked out and he was having fun…
ParticipantI’m wanting to move there. I like desert.
ParticipantIf I hadn’t married my wife I certainly wouldn’t be living in a mansion.
If she hadn’t married me she’d probably have overpaid. And she’d be too busy to have done the refi.
So I guess it all worked out.
ParticipantPaper. Books stacked all over the house. Piles of books in kids rooms. Paper paper paper.
Participant[quote=CA renter]Which brings me to my next question…
If SAH spouses and alimony awards are “relics from days gone by” and no longer appropriate, would you agree that the tradition of a woman taking a man’s name and naming her children after him is equally inappropriate? After all, these traditions are carried forward from times when women and their children were the property of men. There is far less justification for this tradition than for alimony awards for SAHPs.[/quote]
I took my wife’s name. Early adopter in the hyphenation trend. My kids are hyphenates. Sure things are ok now. The problems will occur if they wed hyphenates and their offspring wed hyphenates. Several generations of hyphenates is enough…
That daid, I’m considering changing my name to another last name after 20 years of hyphenation.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=FlyerInHi]CAr, whatever schemes you come up to protect stay at home parents, whom you believe to be mostly women who offer youth beauty and fertility, depend on the cooperation of men. The whole thing falls apart with equality of the sexes and when men and women say “screw it, what’s good for the other sex is good for me too.”[/quote]
Brian, marriage and family have always been about the cooperation of both sexes. Ideally, both spouses bring to the marriage things that the other spouse doesn’t have. They are supposed to complement each other.
Of course, everyone can just do their own thing, like I mentioned in this thread already. They can have their “own” children, either by using a sperm donor or for-profit surrogate, and they can hire other people to do all the work that SAH spouses have traditionally done (though most people could not afford it).
Savings are the ultimate form of income (no taxes!), and having a SAH spouse will offer far more savings than most other arrangements. There is a very real economic value to the work they do.[/quote]
I’m kind of persuaded. But kind of not. It has value but it’s also a form of consumption, being with children. While paying someone else costs money getting the opportunity to stay ho me has tremendous value to the SAH too. The work clearly has value but the deferred comp analogy fails in a way because the earning spouse is not some kind of machine or Corp. That necessarily keeps running and earning in the same way but is prone to breakdowns and the reductions in alimony often won’t reflect that because it would demotivate him to work work work work.
Would it seem absurd for the working parent to be compensated for the time lost she were able to spend with children because of work commitments? Since we are monetizing contributions, why not monetize sacrifices?
That said, I’m almost in agreement with you CaR.
It would all seem fairer if a worker could intentionally reduce their income. I mean sometimes people just wanna slow down and a deferred comp scheme you’ve envisioned puts the worker on the rat race treadmill forever! Any reduction is viewed as an effort to spite the ex. But maybe the worker is losing will. Or just can’t take it…
why must he keep going simply because of a past pattern?
Ach. The whole system sucks.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=SK in CV][quote=6packscaredy]
Because it’s better for kids to have parents who are happy together. And all people are somewhat unreasonable.It seems like less of a sacrifice to try to be happy with a crazy spouse than to be dead. So if you’re willing to die for your kids you ought to bexwillkng v to try to be happy even if diffivult[/quote]
Is it better for kids to have parents that are miserable together or happy apart? What if kids are all growed up? (Full disclosure: I stayed married until the kids were grown, and I don’t regret it, but I’m not sure that was the right decision.)[/quote]
There is a lot of research regarding this, too. Like it or not, most kids couldn’t care less about their parents’ “happiness.” The only exception is when there is major abuse in the home (which isn’t just about a parents’ happiness). The kids care most about their own stability and lifestyle. In the vast majority of cases, children of divorce suffer a dramatic decline in lifestyle, financial status and security, and they have less interested and involved parents because the parents are grieving too much, working longer hours, and/or because they devote themselves to new romantic relationships. Top all of that with the tendency to force children to become permanent transients, constantly moving between “mom’s house” and “dad’s house,” and never having a place to refer to as “home” and it’s easy to see why children of divorce don’t do as well as their peers from intact families. Why in the world would anyone think that a parent’s “happiness” would concern children more than these things?
And, all too often, the “happiness” of one parent is completely offset by the depression and sadness of the other, if not more so. Not exactly something a kid would desire.
Study after study shows that divorce is bad for children, even adult children.[/quote]
in my own personal, admittedly very limited experience,; kids really like to see their parents happy with each other. Not that that’s the only factor obviously. But they enjoy that a lot.so why be miserable. I think there’s always a way to get back to happiness if things don’t get too far off track. Moods change. Accept and tolerate.
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=6packscaredy]I’m glad I was young and broke when I met my wife.[/quote]
Most men are young and broke when they meet their first wives.[/quote]
If I’d waited till I was older i’ve probably been too scared to leap.
ParticipantYou can petition and not prevail.
ParticipantJust cause you’re a lawyer and made 250k last year don’t mean you have the will to make 250 next year. But tthe law doesn’t necessarily care about your flagging will. Pay up!
Participant[quote=CA renter][quote=6packscaredy]Short term alimony not so bad. Longterm Or lifetime alimony feels like it motivates ineptitude and victimhood.
Basically when you get Married you need a real heavy duty partner.
Anything less, skip it.[/quote]
Lots of SAHPs are real heavy duty partners. They do EVERYTHING around the house, and take care of all the family members’ needs in addition to raising well-behaved, responsible, successful children. Many times, they end up taking care of the children, grandchildren, and parents/in-laws over many years.
This is in no way equivalent to “not working,” and it should never be treated or referred to as such.[/quote]
true. But there’s plenty I know where the dude comes home to fucking crazy town and the SAhm is like fuck it your shift and he’s doing child stuff and throwing dinner and laundry together and wondering what the Fucks been going on all day.
probably the SAhm is actuslky busy all day but it’s not like some tight ship in every sahp housrhold. Many suck at the job, just like regular workers suck…Low energy, inefficient etc…
plus shitloads of complaining….leading up to divorce and longterm financial payouts…
-
AuthorPosts
