I don't think it's so cut and dry. When I divorced my husband, I was able to support myself but still got alimony which after 25 years of marriage, both of us thought of as fair. I always worked through our marriage as did he but he earned more.LiveWhatULove wrote: ↑Sat Mar 18, 2023 11:56 am I know this is not always popular opinion, but I think alimony is outdated. I am fine with splitting all wealth at the time of the divorce, but after that…
I teach my kids, you need to always be ready to support yourself and any dependents, and should always consider this when making decisions about sacrificing your career & earning potential to support a spouse in their career.
Furthermore as the higher earner, I would be livid if I had to pay alimony to my husband. F that! I am totally on Team Kenny G even if he had the money, lol.
Alimony is based on a formula in my state so this is what is looked like for me:
Husband income: $200,000 per year
My income: $80,000 per year
Which means I was entitled to $20,000 pre-tax from my husband in alimony. While perhaps to some, that seems unfair, but it did allow me to stay in our home and buy out my husband rather than having it sold and divided as it increased my verifiable income. It allowed me to continue with my career path which I was vested in. When my mother died and I inherited a sum of money, my income changed and we re-negotiated the alimony.
"We" don't know the terms of the divorce (i.e., was property evenly split or was alimony offered in lieu of some division), don't know the state of their finances, and don't know either of their financial earnings and obligations and yet it seems many are quick to jump on the wife. This is bolstered of course by the language used by KG's attorney but isn't that the point?