If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Fox News)   Florida lawmakers want to end life-long alimony payments, make alimony and child custody laws more fair. Naturally, some people have more sand than Daytona Beach in their vaginas over this   (foxnews.com) divider line 156
    More: Hero, child custody, Rick Scott, Daytona Beach, lawmakers  
•       •       •

2672 clicks; posted to Politics » on 24 Apr 2013 at 10:12 AM (51 weeks ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



156 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all
 
2013-04-24 06:53:07 AM
Family court reform has been severely needed for a long time. It is good to see some action on this issue.
 
2013-04-24 08:55:34 AM
This is just another assault in the war on traditional marriage.
 
2013-04-24 09:01:43 AM
I'm confused... The Republicans are on the correct side of a fight. And they're Florida Republicans, to boot.

today.ucla.edu

/I also see that the people complaining about this are largely women... why don't women want to be treated as the equals of men? Or does "equality" mean "we only get the benefits, none of the drawbacks"?
 
2013-04-24 09:15:34 AM
If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.
 
2013-04-24 09:27:00 AM

doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.


This.  I can get that if a woman married you while getting her MRS degree and you get divorced after the kids are raised odds are she's not going to suddenly do really well on the job market.

If you're really that worried in the first few years of marriage that you're coming with disproportionate assets (ie in your 18 months example) you're frankly a complete idiot if you don't get a prenup.  Goes for men AND women.
 
2013-04-24 09:32:30 AM

doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.


Something like this...?

FTFA

Among the provisions, the legislation would generally bar payments from lasting more than half the duration of a marriage and impose benefit caps based on salary.

 But yeah, I agree that if someone gave up their life to be a homemaker, raise the kids, whatever, and then get traded in for the newer model, they should get fair compensation to try to rebuild their life.
 
2013-04-24 09:38:01 AM

FirstNationalBastard: Something like this...?

FTFA

Among the provisions, the legislation would generally bar payments from lasting more than half the duration of a marriage and impose benefit caps based on salary.

 But yeah, I agree that if someone gave up their life to be a homemaker, raise the kids, whatever, and then get traded in for the newer model, they should get fair compensation to try to rebuild their life.


Not exactly.  I think that if a woman has been married for 25 years and finds herself on the outs hovering around 50 there should probably be no sunset clause (unless she remarries).  At that point its way too late to have kids (responsibly) or to have time to move far up a career ladder.
 
2013-04-24 09:40:09 AM
Don't get married. Spend that money on a retainer for a good lawyer.
 
2013-04-24 09:43:58 AM

doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.


What I was thinking.
 
2013-04-24 09:45:21 AM
State Rep. Cynthia Stafford, a Miami Democrat, called the bill "one-sided, anti-woman and mean-spirited."

Biatch please. Try being on the receiving end of family court then come back and complain about something being mean spirited.

My biggest gripe with the whole child support thing is I have been ordered to pay %80 of the financial burden of raising my daughter. Fair enough, I make a ton more than my ex. But I never get a farking tax write off? If I am paying %80 of the burden I want %80 of the deduction. Every other parent in the world gets a tax deduction for their kids. But us guys and gals that do the write thing and pay support get shiat. In the meantime my ex gets over 12k/year out of me and still gets away with claiming the EITC because what I give her is not considered income.
 
2013-04-24 10:03:23 AM
One sided and anti-woman?

So what you're saying is that alimony payments are also one sided and predominately pro-woman?
 
2013-04-24 10:03:58 AM
Why no just legitimize the misstress/cuckold system again?

A good family doesn't divorce. They just stop farking each other but stay together fo the family. Not just the children, but the family as a whole.
 
2013-04-24 10:05:27 AM
i.imgur.com
 
2013-04-24 10:14:42 AM
My mother was always the breadwinner of the two up until my parents divorced, so I'm really getting a kick....
 
2013-04-24 10:16:34 AM
I wholeheartedly agree that lifelong alimony, in modern times, is bullshiat.

And now I'll kick back and listen to some good old fashioned divorce related misogyny.
 
2013-04-24 10:17:02 AM

sammyk: My biggest gripe with the whole child support thing is I have been ordered to pay %80 of the financial burden of raising my daughter. Fair enough, I make a ton more than my ex. But I never get a farking tax write off? If I am paying %80 of the burden I want %80 of the deduction. Every other parent in the world gets a tax deduction for their kids. But us guys and gals that do the write thing and pay support get shiat. In the meantime my ex gets over 12k/year out of me and still gets away with claiming the EITC because what I give her is not considered income.


How do you not get the deduction? I think my mom and dad would negotiate over who needed the deduction that particular year when it came up. Mind you, this was 20 years ago, not in this country, and my dad's payments were made directly to my mother and reported on both sets of taxes. They never once touched a court worker's hands, AFAIK.

From what I've heard down here if you tried something like that, you'd be shot, set on fire, and torn into bitty pieces.
 
2013-04-24 10:17:31 AM
This has to be one of the most blatantly sexist headlines I've ever seen on fark. Wow
 
2013-04-24 10:18:59 AM

adamgreeney: This has to be one of the most blatantly sexist headlines I've ever seen on fark. Wow


It's not that sexist.  There's very little sand there due to erosion.
 
2013-04-24 10:19:26 AM
Stupid biatch ex-wife left me for .38 Special and the judge let her take my Camaro.  Not just one guy in .38 Special I'll add.

She is dating .38 Special.
 
2013-04-24 10:21:16 AM

Rapmaster2000: Stupid biatch ex-wife left me for .38 Special and the judge let her take my Camaro.  Not just one guy in .38 Special I'll add.

She is dating .38 Special.


You're own fault.  You held onto her too loosely.
 
2013-04-24 10:21:17 AM

adamgreeney: This has to be one of the most blatantly sexist headlines I've ever seen on fark. Wow


What's wrong with being sexy?
 
2013-04-24 10:21:43 AM

Uranus Is Huge!: I wholeheartedly agree that lifelong alimony, in modern times, is bullshiat.

And now I'll kick back and listen to some good old fashioned divorce related misogyny.


I see only one post that could be remotely interpreted as misogyny so far.
 
2013-04-24 10:22:26 AM

adamgreeney: This has to be one of the most blatantly sexist headlines I've ever seen on fark. Wow


What's wrong with being sexy?
 
2013-04-24 10:22:54 AM

doyner: Uranus Is Huge!: I wholeheartedly agree that lifelong alimony, in modern times, is bullshiat.

And now I'll kick back and listen to some good old fashioned divorce related misogyny.

I see only one post that could be remotely interpreted as misogyny so far.


Just wait.
 
2013-04-24 10:23:34 AM
In other news, they are doing this in Florida:

kpho.images.worldnow.com

Not sure how I feel about this. Your punishment never really ends - you can do public urination and get exposure to a minor if a kid walks by, and if you ever had any kind of violence in your past, you can actually get slapped with a violent sex offender label.  How about we reform this a bit too, eh?:
 
2013-04-24 10:23:47 AM
Wifely duties should be attached to all alimony payments.

/unfortunately, the very fact the divorce occurs means wifely duties weren't being performed
/amidoinitrite?
/seriously, any legal process should be reviewed from time to time...like forcibly returning escaped slaves or allowing free blacks to be kidnapped and sold into slavery...or women not getting the vote...or not having a court-appointed representative in a criminal trial...
 
2013-04-24 10:24:20 AM
midigod:

Im going to go with great minds think alike?
 
2013-04-24 10:25:29 AM

GF named my left testicle thundercles: Family court reform has been severely needed for a long time. It is good to see some action on this issue.


Eeeeyup.
 
2013-04-24 10:26:37 AM
My dad is stuck paying alimony until my mom is sixty-five, and it's a significant six figures. He currently lives in a podunk apartment, and she moved into a new house with another dude where they live it up on his dime. Fine woman, my mother.
 
2013-04-24 10:27:39 AM
Look, if people can get out of prison after serving time for murder, a person shouldn't have to pay for life for marrying that b*tch.

What? Hey! Ow! Stop!
 
2013-04-24 10:27:55 AM

doyner: If you've been married 20 years and gave up most opportunities for a career, I can see long-term alimony.  But being married for 18 months shouldn't entitle anyone to a life-long annuity.  Could be fair if they had a formula linking it to time served.


Don't they do that currently? Take into account the length and financial contributions of each in the marriage?
 
2013-04-24 10:29:32 AM

Aidan: sammyk: My biggest gripe with the whole child support thing is I have been ordered to pay %80 of the financial burden of raising my daughter. Fair enough, I make a ton more than my ex. But I never get a farking tax write off? If I am paying %80 of the burden I want %80 of the deduction. Every other parent in the world gets a tax deduction for their kids. But us guys and gals that do the write thing and pay support get shiat. In the meantime my ex gets over 12k/year out of me and still gets away with claiming the EITC because what I give her is not considered income.

How do you not get the deduction? I think my mom and dad would negotiate over who needed the deduction that particular year when it came up. Mind you, this was 20 years ago, not in this country, and my dad's payments were made directly to my mother and reported on both sets of taxes. They never once touched a court worker's hands, AFAIK.

From what I've heard down here if you tried something like that, you'd be shot, set on fire, and torn into bitty pieces.


It's worse here. I actually talked the ex into letting me claim my daughter one year. I got audited. Told tough shiat unless I had a court order.
 
2013-04-24 10:30:53 AM
FTFA

"The average guy with an alimony payment couldn't retire," said Hitner, who is divorced. "And I was getting calls from (soon-to-be) second wives ready to cancel their weddings" out of concern that an ex-wife could cut into their paychecks.

I had been under the impression that if joint filing pushed you into a higher tax bracket you might actually pay  less alimony.  Does anyone know how someone could take alimony from an ex-spouse's new spouse?
 
2013-04-24 10:31:05 AM

sammyk: It's worse here. I actually talked the ex into letting me claim my daughter one year. I got audited. Told tough shiat unless I had a court order.


Jesus fark. That ain't right.
 
2013-04-24 10:31:43 AM
On the one hand, as noted, family court could do with a review and possible adjustments/reform.

On the other hand, it's Republicans in Florida, so there's a decent chance they'll screw it up somehow.
 
2013-04-24 10:31:49 AM
I was under the assumption this was already the case in Florida, because of how my parents' divorce went down. My parents were married for about 16 years before that ended. When I came along, my mom gave up being an RN to be a stay-at-home mom while dad, the doctor, worked. He managed to only have to pay alimony for like 3 years. Meanwhile, my mom had to jump from job to job to job - hotel desk staff, secretary for an interior designer, transcriptionist, etc. - to be able to keep the kids fed and with a roof over our head.

Of course, my mom's lawyer was so inept and without the slightest hint of humanity that he tried to convince her to be a stripper if she needed to find a good-paying job because fighting to get alimony (oh yea, and child support, since a man pulling down six-figures would be too burdened to have to pay child support until we all turned 18, according to how the judge ruled) would be a waste of time.
 
2013-04-24 10:32:41 AM
State Rep. Cynthia Stafford, a Miami Democrat, called the bill "one-sided, anti-woman and mean-spirited."

So, which of the provisions are one-sided, anti-woman, or mean-spirited?

-- barring payments from lasting more than half the duration of a marriage
-- benefit caps based on salary
-- equal child custody by default (primarily in no-fault divorce)

... because all of those things sound eminently sensible to the point of "why haven't they always been like that?" to me.

//I mean, it's Fox News, I guess they could be leaving out some significant part of the bill to up the outrage quotient.
 
2013-04-24 10:33:17 AM
Anti- woman? I find the concept that a woman needs a man to pay for her indefinitely to be be much more anti woman than liked alimony. And including the new spouses income in the equation just seems biatchy to me...
 
2013-04-24 10:33:42 AM

adamgreeney: This has to be one of the most blatantly sexist headlines I've ever seen on fark. Wow


Really?

Never heard the phrase "sand in your vagina" applied to men before?

First day on the internet?
 
2013-04-24 10:34:31 AM
Be careful about who you fark.

Be even more careful about who you marry.
 
2013-04-24 10:35:00 AM

Aidan: sammyk: My biggest gripe with the whole child support thing is I have been ordered to pay %80 of the financial burden of raising my daughter. Fair enough, I make a ton more than my ex. But I never get a farking tax write off? If I am paying %80 of the burden I want %80 of the deduction. Every other parent in the world gets a tax deduction for their kids. But us guys and gals that do the write thing and pay support get shiat. In the meantime my ex gets over 12k/year out of me and still gets away with claiming the EITC because what I give her is not considered income.

How do you not get the deduction? I think my mom and dad would negotiate over who needed the deduction that particular year when it came up. Mind you, this was 20 years ago, not in this country, and my dad's payments were made directly to my mother and reported on both sets of taxes. They never once touched a court worker's hands, AFAIK.


Talk to us when you are divorced parent now, not a kid 20 years ago.
 
2013-04-24 10:35:45 AM
Those seem like common sense changes for the most part. Maybe it would seem less "one sided and anti woman" if they included (much) harsher penalties for deadbeats who won't pay child support.
 
2013-04-24 10:35:58 AM
I have a good friend that is basically getting farked by this same inequity.

Wife starts cheating on him (online) 5 minutes (not literally but close enough) after that finish adopting a child and ~6 years into their marriage.  As the "mom" she gets custody and a huge slice of his paycheck.  He can't get married to his now longtime girlfriend because she also makes decent money and the alimony payment would immediately factor in her income should the two of them get married.

So to summarize: get cheated on, get financially pummeled because you have a penis, and get prevented from getting married again because ... well, hell if know why
 
2013-04-24 10:36:28 AM

SisterMaryElephant: Be careful about who you fark.

Be even more careful about who you marry.


Be most careful about who you divorce.

/sometimes a garage and a basement and a man cave are wonderful things. plus the hooker on the corner
 
2013-04-24 10:36:47 AM

DrewCurtisJr: Don't they do that currently? Take into account the length and financial contributions of each in the marriage?


Theoretically, sure, but the lawyers can talk it up and do the usual 'bribing the judge' bit.

This institutes hard caps, so if your alimony is 30% of your salary and you were married five years, the court _cannot_ order you to pay more than 30% of your salary and _cannot_ order you to pay for longer than three years.
 
2013-04-24 10:37:41 AM

Fizpez: So to summarize: get cheated on, get financially pummeled because you have a penis, and get prevented from getting married again because ... well, hell if know why


For his own good.
 
2013-04-24 10:38:02 AM
In before this turns into an MRA thread.

I definitely agree with limiting the number of years of alimony based on the length of the marriage.  Someone getting a lifetime of payments from a marriage that only lasted a short period of time is just stupid.

/Oh, and any time anyone ever seriously uses the phrase "the manner to which they are accustomed" should get punched right in the babymaker.
 
2013-04-24 10:38:39 AM

The Why Not Guy: Those seem like common sense changes for the most part. Maybe it would seem less "one sided and anti woman" if they included (much) harsher penalties for deadbeats who won't pay child support.


If child support is going to be factored into things, it's high time someone starts pushing for Paternity testing at birth, to make sure that some poor bastard isn't paying for another man's child.
 
2013-04-24 10:38:41 AM

Jim_Callahan: State Rep. Cynthia Stafford, a Miami Democrat, called the bill "one-sided, anti-woman and mean-spirited."

So, which of the provisions are one-sided, anti-woman, or mean-spirited?

-- barring payments from lasting more than half the duration of a marriage
-- benefit caps based on salary
-- equal child custody by default (primarily in no-fault divorce)

... because all of those things sound eminently sensible to the point of "why haven't they always been like that?" to me.

//I mean, it's Fox News, I guess they could be leaving out some significant part of the bill to up the outrage quotient.


Don't you know that expecting women to be accountable and responsible is sexist?
 
2013-04-24 10:40:16 AM

Bashar and Asma's Infinite Playlist: Fizpez: So to summarize: get cheated on, get financially pummeled because you have a penis, and get prevented from getting married again because ... well, hell if know why

For his own good.


OK THAT was funny :)
 
Displayed 50 of 156 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report