What's the point of getting married?

[Obormot]

Once a marriage fails both parties want a clean start.
Sometimes it's possible, sometimes it's not.

I don't see why one has to support the other unless there's a prior agreement.
It's actually valid not only for divorced couples. I don't see why one has to feed off another even when they are married. Unless there's a prior mutual agreement, of course.
Clean start is possible when both parties are self-sufficient, which should be their goal during their lives. Housewives just like staying-at-home dads should try harder in their lives and be able to support themselves at least.

If a couple has kids, there will be no more clean start for any of them until kids start living on their own. That's fair.
In the old times, most men tried to keep kids with their mother and to start a new family. As a result, justice responded with an idea of child support. As I said above, I believe it's fair as long as the involvement of both parties is fair too. That's where the problem lies these days and it's more complicated as it may seem. Sometimes women abuse it, but in many cases expenditures go up. For instance, parties have to live separately and buy or rent 2 properties instead of one.

Fortunately, for rich people child support is not a problem. Main problem is the alimony, which should not exist at all.

There should also be a cap on these things. I don't see justification or any reasoning to pay child support of $20,000+ a month if a man is rich. No child requires this much money for support, its ridiculous. I agree with alimony and it should not exist at all. Women can easily go find another man to support them or get a job. If a man is screwed with alimony, he's pretty much screwed for a very long time. If he is out of work, or ends up having to take a less paying job, he's screwed. While all this is happening, the woman is raking in all the free money. What really pisses me off is the fact that these feminists fight for this so called "equality". If it's so equal, then there should not be alimony. They can go out on their own and get a job like everyone else. There is no such thing as "equality" between man and woman here in the US. It's at the point where woman have most of the rights than men. It's time that us men fight for our rights for true equality. Marriage in the US is bs, plain and simple.

Some kids consume more than 20K/month.
But I totally agree. It should be reasonable. It should support the same lifestyle children had during the marriage, but it should have nothing to do with their mother's lifestyle.
The problem is not with equality, but rather with the fact that women make less than men on average. If it changes, the law will favor men.

[marklambo]

Once a marriage fails both parties want a clean start.
Sometimes it's possible, sometimes it's not.

I don't see why one has to support the other unless there's a prior agreement.
It's actually valid not only for divorced couples. I don't see why one has to feed off another even when they are married. Unless there's a prior mutual agreement, of course.
Clean start is possible when both parties are self-sufficient, which should be their goal during their lives. Housewives just like staying-at-home dads should try harder in their lives and be able to support themselves at least.

If a couple has kids, there will be no more clean start for any of them until kids start living on their own. That's fair.
In the old times, most men tried to keep kids with their mother and to start a new family. As a result, justice responded with an idea of child support. As I said above, I believe it's fair as long as the involvement of both parties is fair too. That's where the problem lies these days and it's more complicated as it may seem. Sometimes women abuse it, but in many cases expenditures go up. For instance, parties have to live separately and buy or rent 2 properties instead of one.

Fortunately, for rich people child support is not a problem. Main problem is the alimony, which should not exist at all.

There should also be a cap on these things. I don't see justification or any reasoning to pay child support of $20,000+ a month if a man is rich. No child requires this much money for support, its ridiculous. I agree with alimony and it should not exist at all. Women can easily go find another man to support them or get a job. If a man is screwed with alimony, he's pretty much screwed for a very long time. If he is out of work, or ends up having to take a less paying job, he's screwed. While all this is happening, the woman is raking in all the free money. What really pisses me off is the fact that these feminists fight for this so called "equality". If it's so equal, then there should not be alimony. They can go out on their own and get a job like everyone else. There is no such thing as "equality" between man and woman here in the US. It's at the point where woman have most of the rights than men. It's time that us men fight for our rights for true equality. Marriage in the US is bs, plain and simple.

Some kids consume more than 20K/month.
But I totally agree. It should be reasonable. It should support the same lifestyle children had during the marriage, but it should have nothing to do with their mother's lifestyle.
The problem is not with equality, but rather with the fact that women make less than men on average. If it changes, the law will favor men.

Any person consuming 20k a month is not consuming anything based on the necessities of living. It's all luxury from there. The average income in the United States is about 40k a year so any child utilizing more than 20k a month is completely not necessary and just unrealistic. There is simply no justification whatsoever to grant a 20k a month child support to anyone, whether they can afford it or not. It just makes NO SENSE. It's legalized robbery committed by women and allowed by the government.

If you calculate it worldwide, women make less because of certain countries but if you are talking about America, it's not true. There are many women who are top executives or have some kind of high position job that make more than many men. The problem with equality still exists on a large level. There is NO equality, that's the problem. AW are just as capable of finding a job like a man, in fact, women actually have an advantage in most cases, only because they have a vagina. America is a troubled country and unfortunately I don't see it changing for the better any time soon. The whole court system regarding marriages in America needs to be re written.

[Obormot]

I have to disagree.
First of all, there are different kids with different expenses. For instance, if they have private teachers or expensive private school their father, as a responsible parent, wouldn't want them to move to a trailer park and start going to public school for families with 40K annual income.
I don't think relationship with kids ends with the marriage. I think one should pursue the same opportunities for his kids, which in some cases means a lot of money.
If somehow before divorce the man was able to find 20K/month and reason to spend it for his kids, I don't think why he should change his mind after the divorce.

Regarding equality, what you're saying is basically that some women do make more than their men. True that. I don't see how those men would possibly end up with alimony to pay. I believe they would rather get an alimony paid by their richer halves. The problem is that it's not too many couples like that.
BTW, many rich women are single because instead of families they were building careers.

[marklambo]

I have to disagree.
First of all, there are different kids with different expenses. For instance, if they have private teachers or expensive private school their father, as a responsible parent, wouldn't want them to move to a trailer park and start going to public school for families with 40K annual income.
I don't think relationship with kids ends with the marriage. I think one should pursue the same opportunities for his kids, which in some cases means a lot of money.
If somehow before divorce the man was able to find 20K/month and reason to spend it for his kids, I don't think why he should change his mind after the divorce.

Regarding equality, what you're saying is basically that some women do make more than their men. True that. I don't see how those men would possibly end up with alimony to pay. I believe they would rather get an alimony paid by their richer halves. The problem is that it's not too many couples like that.
BTW, many rich women are single because instead of families they were building careers.

No child is worth $20k a month. It's unrealistic and foolish to even agree it is normal. Whether it be private teachers or whatever. It's a luxury, not a necessity and no child "needs" something like $20k a month for anything, regardless of how spoiled of a brat they are. 99% of kids go to normal schools and end up perfectly fine and well educated. Spending $20k a month on just a child is stupidity. Parents that choose to spend that much on a child or themselves is simply a luxury. Kids don't need a ridiculous amount of $20k a month to have opportunities. It's better to let the kids grow up and learn in schools with other kids around anyway. By doing so, they start to learn and develop social skills that will help them in the real world.

Trailer park? Who says that people in trailer parks even make anywhere near 40k a year? 40k a year is about the average income in the US and there are many public schools that are good. Even if it were a private school, it's nowhere near $20k a month, it can start around the range of $1k a month. There are people only making $20k a year or less and still don't live in trailer parks.

Simply put, you still can't justify $20k a month for a child is normal or reasonable because it isn't. It just makes no sense. It's WAY overboard. It is foolish for anyone to think that spending $20k a month on a child is "reasonable". During child support, what you don't realize is that all that money is never even used for the kid anyway. Who do you think uses most of it? It's not the child that's for sure.

As for men getting alimony, come on man, this is the United States we're talking about! A judge will just order the man to find a job. The judge isn't going to be easy on the man compared to a woman and that's a fact. If you get a female judge, even worse! IF he gets lucky to get alimony, it will most likely be very temporary, unlike a woman who can usually get it for life. If a woman is the breadwinner, the man is STILL f***ed in some way. He'll never get anywhere near what a woman would get in the same situation. There's no equality, period. The corrupted system doesn't look at the man in court and sob and say "oh, we feel sorry for you John, you took care of the kids, cooked, and cleaned, sure we'll make sure your ex wife pays you alimony for life because you were such a great man to your family" They don't have sympathy for the man. It's just the way it works here, whether you like it, believe it, or choose not to believe it. It's the way it is and I don't know why you're even arguing this fact

[Obormot]

OK. I'll have to agree on the equality statement. Judges tend to favor women. Just because.

As far as child support, first of all let's not argue about 20K. Few people get to extreme cases like that. What's more typical is a fight between 1.5K and 3K per month, which is a big difference of course for an average guy.

The guy remembers that his only child goes to kindergaten and it costs roughly 1.5K/month. Food and stuff is another 2K. His ex-wife was taking care of the rest. Now ex-wife claims that she has to work and she needs a nanny, which is another 1K and help to pay mortgage previously paid by the man (another 1K). Throw in insurance (500). So she's asking for 4.5K.

Well, the guy is making 5K and honestly responds that he simply can't pay and never was paying that much for his kid.

How about 3.5K, which includes nanny + kindergarten + insurance. The guy fights insurance charge saying that he's going to pay for it with his benefit package. OK judge says. 3K. It's about 1K over what the guy was paying before. It's a lot of money.
It's not necessarily nanny, maybe mortgage, but some sort of compensation for single parent taking care of the child.

On the other hand, woman is facing grim times too. She was not working. Let's say she's still marketable and can find good job. With no recent experience let's say her job pays 3K, which translates to a 50K salary and is better than many can get. She pays mortgage and payments with 2.5K (which is actually very frugal. Kid takes same 1.5 for kindergarten + 500 for food and 1K for nanny so she can go to work. Monthly budget is 5.5K. So there's no way she can live with 1.5K child support. 2.5K is a bare minimum.

The guy probably thinks it's fair to pay half for the kid, which is 1250. Fine, be it 1.5K.
His ex-wife though simply has not enough money, thus she'll be fighting till the end, meaning till 2.5K at least.

Now let's discuss what's fair.
I personally don't know.

[Andrewww]

What's fair is that the the woman should go rent a small apartment if she can't afford to pay a mortgage.

Also, can't pay for a nanny ? Let the kid live with his father then who ears more money and can afford it.

Are there proven studies that show children who grow up with their mothers are better off than with their fathers ?

I have known a lot of people who grew up with their single mothers and they didn't turn out so good.

[marklambo]

OK. I'll have to agree on the equality statement. Judges tend to favor women. Just because.

As far as child support, first of all let's not argue about 20K. Few people get to extreme cases like that. What's more typical is a fight between 1.5K and 3K per month, which is a big difference of course for an average guy.

The guy remembers that his only child goes to kindergaten and it costs roughly 1.5K/month. Food and stuff is another 2K. His ex-wife was taking care of the rest. Now ex-wife claims that she has to work and she needs a nanny, which is another 1K and help to pay mortgage previously paid by the man (another 1K). Throw in insurance (500). So she's asking for 4.5K.

Well, the guy is making 5K and honestly responds that he simply can't pay and never was paying that much for his kid.

How about 3.5K, which includes nanny + kindergarten + insurance. The guy fights insurance charge saying that he's going to pay for it with his benefit package. OK judge says. 3K. It's about 1K over what the guy was paying before. It's a lot of money.
It's not necessarily nanny, maybe mortgage, but some sort of compensation for single parent taking care of the child.

On the other hand, woman is facing grim times too. She was not working. Let's say she's still marketable and can find good job. With no recent experience let's say her job pays 3K, which translates to a 50K salary and is better than many can get. She pays mortgage and payments with 2.5K (which is actually very frugal. Kid takes same 1.5 for kindergarten + 500 for food and 1K for nanny so she can go to work. Monthly budget is 5.5K. So there's no way she can live with 1.5K child support. 2.5K is a bare minimum.

The guy probably thinks it's fair to pay half for the kid, which is 1250. Fine, be it 1.5K.
His ex-wife though simply has not enough money, thus she'll be fighting till the end, meaning till 2.5K at least.

Now let's discuss what's fair.
I personally don't know.

There's an easier way.

No need for a nanny because if she's working a normal job, she would drop off the kid to school. If a babysitter is needed temporarily for a few hours before she comes home, that's fine but it won't cost anywhere near $1k a month.

$2k a month for food and stuff is too much, even if the kid is obese and eats like a fat pig. $2k is not needed. The mother most likely will be grocery shopping and cooking anyway. You can get plenty of food for a month's worth for 2 people plus any other minor necessities and keep the bill about $500 or less a month easy.

Kid can go to free school, there are plenty of free good schools available. The only time the school would suck is if it's a shitty area. In that case, they move to a better place.

Mortgage of $2500 a month is too high. Even assuming a mortgage at a 7% interest rate, that's a $340,000 home we're talking about. She can easily get something more affordable and reasonable or just rent an apartment for $800 - $1000 a month.

Based on these figures, she would only need $500 a month for actual child support. Even if they put the kid to a special school and with a babysitter, $1500 a month is more than enough. Anything more, she's just pocketing and everyone knows this.

If they both have equal custody of the kid, then she should pay half of the $1500. So in actuality, she would only need $750 a month child support. The court system just rapes the man and just inflates what the true cost of a child really is.

$5500 a month to raise a child is not necessary at all. That's going to the extreme.

If the woman is working, she should contribute but many times these women just abuse the privilege and don't even go get a job even if they could. Why would they want to if they have all that free money coming? And other times they'll just find some other guy to stay with and have him pay all the bills while she collects. Abuse, that's what it is, plain and simple.

[Obormot]

I was expecting the amount of $250, which is half of $500. How come you raised it up to $750?

You described another extreme case. Reality is somewhere in the middle. 300K house is about average for the nation. If you add all related bills you'll end up with about 3.5K/month, which is 1K higher than in my calculations.

50K job for a woman with no recent hands on experience is delusional. So on average it's worse than 3K/month. It's more like 2-2.5K. We didn't even count cars, vacations (for the kid), one offs, etc.

Basically, I was just trying to show you that there are 2 sides to this problem.
The key is that expenses are lower when people live together.
Like with nuclear reaction, a nucleus has more energy when it's in one piece than when it's split in 2.
When the split happens, lots of energy is released. In physics it causes nuclear reaction. In relationships it causes a divorce fight.

[Obormot]

What's fair is that the the woman should go rent a small apartment if she can't afford to pay a mortgage.

This point is valid for when there are no kids.
If you do have kids, as a responsible father, you probably want them to have a life of the same quality they had before the divorce.

[marklambo]

I was expecting the amount of $250, which is half of $500. How come you raised it up to $750?

You described another extreme case. Reality is somewhere in the middle. 300K house is about average for the nation. If you add all related bills you'll end up with about 3.5K/month, which is 1K higher than in my calculations.

50K job for a woman with no recent hands on experience is delusional. So on average it's worse than 3K/month. It's more like 2-2.5K. We didn't even count cars, vacations (for the kid), one offs, etc.

Basically, I was just trying to show you that there are 2 sides to this problem.
The key is that expenses are lower when people live together.
Like with nuclear reaction, a nucleus has more energy when it's in one piece than when it's split in 2.
When the split happens, lots of energy is released. In physics it causes nuclear reaction. In relationships it causes a divorce fight.

$500 was without sending the kid to a special school and $1500 was assuming if there was a special/private school involved. I gave 2 scenarios in my post. I said $750 split between 2 assuming they had the worst case scenario of $1500 with the kid going to a private school.

During the real estate bubble, the average home was about 300k+ average. In California, it was a bit higher. Condos were going for 300k+ The market crashed and that average is no longer the case. And that was typically the average in California, which is one of the highest.

Data taken: http://www.realestateabc.com/outlook/overall.htm
In the Northeast, the median home price sank to $238,700 in September from $249,800 in August, but rose 4.1 percent from the year before.

The median price in the Midwest fell to $145,200 from $151,000 in August, but rose 7.0 percent from a year earlier.

In the South, the median price climbed in September to $163,600, up from $158,000. Compared with September 2011, the price is up 13.1 percent.

With inventory continuing to decrease, the median price in the West rose to $246,300, up from $242,000 in August. The new median is also up 18.4 percent from the previous year.

$300k is not the average in America. You can now buy condos for 40k-100k or less, and in decent areas too.

You also need to remember that women here ALWAYS have the upper hand. If she can't find a job, she'll just go find a man instead and milk him like she did the first time which is easier for her to do anyway. She doesn't need to find a 50k a year job, or any job. Her main job becomes "finding a new sucker"

The problem with America is that people don't know how to budget and put everything on credit. They think they need to "make more money" but if cut out all the bullshit they don't need such as new cars and new electronics, they quickly can realize how much further their money can go.

I understand you are trying to make a point but you seem to favor and feel sorry for the AW for some reason If that's your thing, then it's your choice but you do realize this forum doesn't like the AW too much You're fighting an uphill battle here my friend