If you spend 15 years in a relationship caring for the household and the kids, that's 15 years you are not spending on developing job skills and developing human capital. It's not really accurate to simply assume that the two are similarly situated after such a period of time.
Doesn't matter. It's a choice- willingly made. Why should anyone else have to pay for your choices? The husband supports the wife already- free food and board + whatever they want to spend money on.
If you have children, the husband is LEGALLY obliged to pay child support and morally obliged to keep them healthy and happy. If you don't have kids together, that's even less reason she should receive money.
Furthermore, if you choose not to improve yourself because you are happy being taken care of, that's also not a justification for receiving money. It's not as if the only way for a woman to increase employability or secure income is through being a career woman. Also, let's not pretend that a woman couldn't find another man to support her and that the previous husband would be off the hook for alimony if she did.
Yep. Point? Why does a man have to pay for it when it's no longer good?
Not enough to make it remotely fair
Alimony is not fair, and how the hell do you quantify what is "fair" repayment? Any number you could put on it is entirely arbitrary. It's a union, not employment.
Unless she is a housewife
No. You still haven't explained why that would entitle her to receive money after she ceases to be one.
We were talking about homemakers, not people who 'choose not to improve themselves'
My point there was you can improve yourself while also being a "homemaker". Wives get degrees, take up hobbies, DIY, whatever- they do have free time within which they can do or learn other things.
There's nothing rational about alimony- it's entirely based on men and women's bias towards women. It's at best a forced "charity" to help women long after they can get back on their own 2 feet.
Besides, you still haven't answered the most important argument: if a woman isn't forced to share the same debt after a divorce, why should she be able to take a share of the earnings? Why is a woman entitled to enough money to "maintain her lifestyle" even if the man is bankrupt, or the alimony puts him there? Nobody is entitled to comfort or safety at someone else's expense.
Yep. Point? Why does a man have to pay for it when it's no longer good?
Why should a man be able to dump his wife of 15 years and leave her much worse for it?
Any number you could put on it is entirely arbitrary.
Heap fallacy. Just because no perfect fairness is possible, does not mean that you cannot try to make it more fair.
No. You still haven't explained why that would entitle her to receive money after she ceases to be one.
I mean, it's obvious that you want the law to benefit you at the expense of others, so of course you are not persuaded, and never will be no matter the quality of the arguments.
Why should a housewife receive money after a divorce (not initiated by her or initiated for good cause)? Because she sacrificed work experience and raises to be a housewife, which benefited the man.
if a woman isn't forced to share the same debt after a divorce, why should she be able to take a share of the earnings?
She gets the earnings that expanded in the time that they were married, and debts acquired during the marriage, not pre-existing property or debts.
Why is a woman entitled to enough money to "maintain her lifestyle" even if the man is bankrupt, or the alimony puts him there?
If you spend 15 years in a relationship caring for the household and the kids, that's 15 years you are not spending on developing job skills and developing human capital. It's not really accurate to simply assume that the two are similarly situated after such a period of time.
Doesn't matter. It's a choice- willingly made. Why should anyone else have to pay for your choices? The husband supports the wife already- free food and board + whatever they want to spend money on.
If you have children, the husband is LEGALLY obliged to pay child support and morally obliged to keep them healthy and happy. If you don't have kids together, that's even less reason she should receive money.
Furthermore, if you choose not to improve yourself because you are happy being taken care of, that's also not a justification for receiving money. It's not as if the only way for a woman to increase employability or secure income is through being a career woman. Also, let's not pretend that a woman couldn't find another man to support her and that the previous husband would be off the hook for alimony if she did.
The choice is a social good.
Not enough to make it remotely fair.
Unless she is a housewife. If she has a career of her own, I agree.
We were talking about homemakers, not people who 'choose not to improve themselves'.
Yep. Point? Why does a man have to pay for it when it's no longer good?
Alimony is not fair, and how the hell do you quantify what is "fair" repayment? Any number you could put on it is entirely arbitrary. It's a union, not employment.
No. You still haven't explained why that would entitle her to receive money after she ceases to be one.
My point there was you can improve yourself while also being a "homemaker". Wives get degrees, take up hobbies, DIY, whatever- they do have free time within which they can do or learn other things.
There's nothing rational about alimony- it's entirely based on men and women's bias towards women. It's at best a forced "charity" to help women long after they can get back on their own 2 feet.
Besides, you still haven't answered the most important argument: if a woman isn't forced to share the same debt after a divorce, why should she be able to take a share of the earnings? Why is a woman entitled to enough money to "maintain her lifestyle" even if the man is bankrupt, or the alimony puts him there? Nobody is entitled to comfort or safety at someone else's expense.
Why should a man be able to dump his wife of 15 years and leave her much worse for it?
Heap fallacy. Just because no perfect fairness is possible, does not mean that you cannot try to make it more fair.
I mean, it's obvious that you want the law to benefit you at the expense of others, so of course you are not persuaded, and never will be no matter the quality of the arguments.
Why should a housewife receive money after a divorce (not initiated by her or initiated for good cause)? Because she sacrificed work experience and raises to be a housewife, which benefited the man.
She gets the earnings that expanded in the time that they were married, and debts acquired during the marriage, not pre-existing property or debts.
Never said I supported that.
We should just bring back dowries instead
Her child. There's never any guarantee that it's his too. Although the government will still come for child support regardless of that.
Which gained him work experience and many raises.
How many screws do you have loose?