- Feature Articles
- CodeSOD
- Error'd
-
Forums
-
Other Articles
- Random Article
- Alex's Soapbox
- Announcements
- Best of…
- Best of Email
- Best of the Sidebar
- Bring Your Own Code
- Coded Smorgasbord
- Mandatory Fun Day
- Off Topic
- Representative Line
- News Roundup
- Editor's Soapbox
- Software on the Rocks
- Souvenir Potpourri
- Sponsor Post
- Tales from the Interview
- The Daily WTF: Live
- Virtudyne
Admin
That would be child support, not alimony, unless you also marry the customer. Either way, though, you're right; it's costly.
Admin
I stand corrected, sir!
Admin
Oh, many a time I've WISHED I had something, anything tangible to work from. Many a time I've had the users just hand-wave and try to describe some sort of database containing something, or a file derived from some weird file into a Smurfnovsky-like text file, or that I should fix whatever is wrong, whatever it was. I've PRAYED for diagrams as scruffy as the one in this posting. You guys don't know how good you have it!
Admin
No, WordPress is TR :wtf: there, not glorious language of PHP for greater glory of programmer!
Admin
OTOH, seeing how WordPress's been changing the past few yers, it becomes more and more TR :wtf:.
Admin
This! So much this! I've seen things .... TERRIBLE THINGS
o_O
Admin
ALL OF THE LIKES!!!!! [image]
Admin
This bit was interesting to me because over here we (perhaps informally) call child support payments "alimenti" and I always thought alimony in English referred to the same thing.
Admin
Admin
That's the first time (well, second if we count your earlier post as a separate occasion) I've heard of the concept.
Why would one continue nourishing his ex-wife? With children it's more or less understandable, but a wife after divorce can fuck right off AFAIC. At that point she's probably already taken the best part of your possessions obtained while living together.
Admin
Because one is legally obligated to do so, or because one partner didn't want the divorce and continues to demonstrate a commitment to the other in the (probably futile) hope of bringing about a reconciliation.
It's based on income and the idea that both spouses contributed more-or-less equally — in time and effort managing the household, if not financially — during the marriage. The one with the lower income could be earning more if not for the sacrifices made on behalf of the marriage, and the higher-earning (ex-)spouse should compensate the lower-earning one for that sacrifice, or something like that. Obviously, this is ripe for abuse by a lazy or hostile ex-spouse.
Admin
OK, that's a nice bit of pedantry and I can appreciate that
That's the dumbest thing I've read in a while. Please note, I'm not calling you dumb for writing that, because there are probably people that indeed do just that. But the actions you describe seem to me extremely dumb, like a terminal stage of friend-zone.
Because of that, the things acquired during said marriage are usually already split between the ex-spouses. Forcing the higher-earning spouse to nourish his ex-partner on top of that seems absurd. Perhaps I don't understand the details, but let's say I don't want a divorce and my wife does. So she gets a divorce and I have to pay her for the rest of my life?
Admin
Basically, except it's probably not for the rest of your life. The only state whose laws I know anything about is California, and there the duration of support depends on the length of time you were married. In the case of a "long-term" marriage, support lasts longer than for a shorter marriage, but I don't recall off-hand the definition of "long-term" (10 years?) nor how long support lasts in either case. It can also be adjusted or terminated if circumstances change, e.g., either spouse's income changes or the receiving spouse remarries (legally or enters into a relationship financially equivalent to marriage).
All this goes out the window, though, if the ex-spouses agree to different terms. The court will look at the agreement, and as long as the agreement is at least somewhat fair (and is written in proper legalese), will approve it and enter it as a court order. This can still me modified if circumstances change, but I think it may be more difficult, as it was entered into voluntarily. I'm not sure about that; IANAL, and I can't afford to ask one.
Admin
I'm currently facing the very real possibility of owing my future ex-wife 25% of my current pre-tax income for the next 15 years. If my income goes up, she can ask for more. If my income goes down, I can't get it reduced unless I can prove "hardship". If I lose my job, I still owe her the money because I may have intentionally gotten fired to spite her.
Admin
Thanks for the explanation. That is better than I thought but I still maintain the concept is retarded.
If you marry a millionaire you get to spend his money while being married. If you are no longer willing to be married, you are no longer entitled to the money. Substitute "millionaire" with any income brackets you want.
If you choose to be a housewife either you have kids and you'll get child support when divorced, or you choose to be a housewife - then you have to consider the consequences.
Admin
My condolences.
:wtf:
That's just plain retarded. So the life lesson from this:
When/if the support period ends: goto 1.
Admin
And then you can go to jail for not paying, but still continue to get deeper in debt, but nobody cares because you're a man and privileged.
Admin
MRA Alert!
I guess. That's always been my understanding of what they were about, but crazy feminists have other ideas, so who knows?
Admin
I think this and/or similar sorts of issues are what originally started the MRA movement (if movement is the right word). What they're about now and what crazy feminists think MRA is about may be entirely different things, IDK.
Admin
I keep reading that as “MRE movement” which brings up a very different (and uncomfortable) set of imagery…
Admin
I understand each word in that sentence, but I can't disambiguate between multiple possible meanings.
I was thinking specifically of the case where that guy got shot in South Carolina this summer for running from a cop. He was apparently doing that because he'd been arrested a couple times for not being able to make his alimony payment, then discovered it's really hard to get a new job when you've gone to jail, and he was behind again, and was afraid of getting sent back to jail to get even farther behind.
Admin
My first encounter with the acronym was dealing with issues of alimony and divorce. Then @buddy came along and seemed to be talking about something completely different.
Admin
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_pill_and_blue_pill
Admin
Just say no to drugs, @Buddy.
Admin
Same thing in Polish. That's where the mistake came from.
Admin
But look at how much smarter they made Swampy!
https://what.thedailywtf.com/t/nobody-shares-knowledge-better-than-this/257/95?u=hardwaregeek
Admin
The red pill wasn't a drug. It was a program to cause the Matrix to eject Neo and a tracer to allow the Nebuchadnezzar to find his physical body. If I'm remembering right that is, it's been a few years.
The blue pill we don't know because he didn't take it but it wouldn't have been drugs either because it didn't really exist. There is no spoon.