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?
.... not even gonna finish the whole thing- as if it's the men who initiate most divorce...
Heap fallacy
Fallacy doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't mean you wouldn't be able to do it accurately, I mean you shouldn't put a number on it at all. It's not a paid position or something requiring reimbursement. It's like billing your friend for a favour that didn't financially cost anything- you could put a number on it, but you shouldn't.
sacrificed work experience
That's your opinion. You've artificially deemed it a "sacrifice" instead of a choice. If she chooses to take a lower-paying job, is she entitled to the pay from her old job? No, that's dumb, and so is alimony. Divorcing is like quitting or getting fired- you don't get to keep a salary afterwards.
benefited the man
This isn't a 1-way street. The woman benefits too. Many would say the woman benefits more by not having to remain a corporate drone to put food on the table. You view marriage like a sacrifice of the woman that only benefits the man- I won't be able to make a convincing argument otherwise until you see marriage as equal partnership of 2 mutually consenting adults instead of "man inflicts spousal contract on woman".
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
Bull. Never heard of a woman having to pay after the man gets down on his luck.
Never said I supported that
That's what alimony is. Otherwise, why is alimony tied to the man's income?
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.
.... not even gonna finish the whole thing- as if it's the men who initiate most divorce...
Fallacy doesn't mean it's wrong. I don't mean you wouldn't be able to do it accurately, I mean you shouldn't put a number on it at all. It's not a paid position or something requiring reimbursement. It's like billing your friend for a favour that didn't financially cost anything- you could put a number on it, but you shouldn't.
That's your opinion. You've artificially deemed it a "sacrifice" instead of a choice. If she chooses to take a lower-paying job, is she entitled to the pay from her old job? No, that's dumb, and so is alimony. Divorcing is like quitting or getting fired- you don't get to keep a salary afterwards.
This isn't a 1-way street. The woman benefits too. Many would say the woman benefits more by not having to remain a corporate drone to put food on the table. You view marriage like a sacrifice of the woman that only benefits the man- I won't be able to make a convincing argument otherwise until you see marriage as equal partnership of 2 mutually consenting adults instead of "man inflicts spousal contract on woman".
Bull. Never heard of a woman having to pay after the man gets down on his luck.
That's what alimony is. Otherwise, why is alimony tied to the man's income?