Followed by 1
Ignored by 1
In United States
Registered Mar 08, 2012
CDon's most recent comments:
- On Fri, 20 Mar 2015, 2:21pm PDT
Young Adults Are Losing All Hope of Buying a Starter Home,
Buying a home? I think they are buying a mortgage.
While it may seem that way at first, you would be surprised how time flies. When the bubble peaked, I still had approx. 20+ years to go. Now, here we are in year 2015 and I am astonished to realize I only have 9 years left (I pay on a slightly accelerated pace), meaning I will be 51 years old with no more mortgage payment for the rest of my life. Compare this to the handful of regular posters who admit that they have rented the same house for 10 - 15 years or longer. If Patrick had bought when he seriously thought about it in 1999, he too would be seriously contemplating life that was largely payment free. Hopefully his savings are as large as he likely has another 30-50 more years of possibly escalating payments ahead of him.
- On Fri, 20 Mar 2015, 2:06pm PDT
The Night My Husband Revealed To Me His Double Life,
ll I'm saying is there is an other side of this: whether you should dump a homemaker on the street without help. This should be considered too.
What nonsense. You are conflating (equating) allowing men the same rights as women, in marriage and otherwise, with "dumping a homemaker on the street without help."
Whether you consider yourself a traditionalist or feminist or "concerned citizen" or something else, I do not care. What matters is that your argumentation is fundamentally dishonest.
While some on Patnet have a very clear preference for what they "think" the law says, I think you would be presently surprised that the law in terms of alimony has become decidedly "genderless" in the last few decades.
Now to Heraclit's point, yes the Public Policy has long been that if either spouse does not have the means or ability to provide for themselves (either the old days where only 1 spouse worked - or two income households, where one gives up a career to raise kids/maintain the household) when they divorce, the law prefers that the earning spouse (versus the taxpayer) shall pay to "rehabilitate" the non earning spouse.
The public policy idea here is the payments should be enough for the person to live in the lifestyle they were accustomed to while they go out and acquire skills such that they can take care of themselves after a few years. Thus, alimony usually ends after a few years (with exceptions made for older spouses who are well past their earning years). Also, its a sliding scale where payments are much more for long term marriages - the shorter the term, the less you get/pay.
Now granted, in the majority of cases, yes it is the still the woman getting payments but that is because the are the ones doing the primary childrearing and household responsiblities, while more men earn.
That being said, the law in this area truly is genderless. If you wonder how I know, my wife has made quite a name for herself specializing in cases where she represents the husband who stayed home with the kids while the high income wife worked. The men she represents are so happy that nearly all the referrals she gets are "hey, my buddy said that you absolutely crucified his ex-wife and he got a big payday! Can you represent me & do the same for me?
- On Thu, 26 Feb 2015, 6:38pm PST
Average federal tax refund is $3,120 so far,
If anything I would prefer to pay when I file.
So you say. Last year, My wife and her new business partners first underestimated receipts, and then to make matters worse decided to hold on to some earnings and establish a "rainy day fund". Long story short, you have no idea how painful it is to stroke a check to the US Treasury for 87 fucking thousand dollars! Don't ever self finance - revolving line of credit is the way to go.