Bells Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 This is interesting...it's on the radio as well. "Is Divorce Becoming a Luxury?" Pretty sad....I knew this one chick was shaggin' up with a guy after she divorced him, because she was a stay at home mom all her life...she couldn't afford to move out...but she had a boyfriend she went to see....pretty pathetic. lol Anyways, lawyers are NOW recommending that people WORK on their marriages....it was funny when I saw that "My wife LOVES me but is not IN love with me" thread. And people divorcing something as lame as that as well. And now..it's come to pass that we might actually STOP divorcing over stupid reasons....I like that. Here is an excerpt: Lazar points to a unique case of a couple with kids who’ve been married for 20 + years. They pursued a divorce but continued to live under the same roof. After spending thousands of dollars in legal fees, they found that the husband, who was taking home $6,000 a month, would have to spend $4,000 per month on spousal maintenance and child care expenses. “He decided it wasn’t enough for him to have any sort of life until his kids were 18 so he reconciled with his wife.” Good for them...they worked on their marraige. Funny, finances were the number 1 thing that was divorcing people...but now it's bringing them together. lol. Link to post Share on other sites
george35 Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Remember the old adage; if the license cost as much as the divorce there would be far less divorce, or something to that effect. Link to post Share on other sites
Dominique Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 If it is "finances" which are forcing "marriages" to stay together, it isn't something to celebrate, it is the most pathetic thing in the world. Like two shaggy, broke, smelly college roomates tolerating each other with the contempt just under the surface. Only where there is genuine love, genuine emotional feeling in a marriage is that marriage respectable--a real marriage. Divorce laws should be changed so that the wife (or whichever spouse) cannot claim to leave a man high and dry and broke if for whatever reason the marriage does not work out (and I am not assuming here that he is some jerk serial cheater or abuser). Life should not be easy-come-easy-go and for most it isn't. But absolutely no one should be punished into staying in a bad marriage. Tell me, to spouses actually get a kick living with someone who does not love them or vice-versa? Am I somewhat blessed not to be married (though I belive in marriage) ? Holy Moly I do feel sorry for many. Dom Link to post Share on other sites
carhill Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Tell me, do spouses actually get a kick living with someone who does not love them or vice-versa? Am I somewhat blessed not to be married (though I belive in marriage) ? Holy Moly I do feel sorry for many. No kicks. Just reality....each circumstance is unique in its factors, fears and motivations. No, not "blessed", but perhaps on a different path. Each path is unique and self-evident. IME, I was overall "happier" as a long-time single, but I've grown far more as a person and feel more fulfilled in life being married. It's just a different path. I would never attempt (in divorce) to "get" anything from my wife, who earns far more than I do. My sense of fairness intervenes. I lived quite nicely when single and could again; my "needs" in life are modest. Obviously, that doesn't apply to all. Another example of a unique path Link to post Share on other sites
bish Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Why is divorce so expensive??? ..........because its worth it. Link to post Share on other sites
Shygirl15 Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Funny, finances were the number 1 thing that was divorcing people...but now it's bringing them together. lol. My boyfriend is constantly telling me he would rather be poor that stay married to her, hence proceeding with the divorce. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Bells Posted September 29, 2008 Author Share Posted September 29, 2008 If it is "finances" which are forcing "marriages" to stay together, it isn't something to celebrate, it is the most pathetic thing in the world. Like two shaggy, broke, smelly college roomates tolerating each other with the contempt just under the surface. Only where there is genuine love, genuine emotional feeling in a marriage is that marriage respectable--a real marriage. Divorce laws should be changed so that the wife (or whichever spouse) cannot claim to leave a man high and dry and broke if for whatever reason the marriage does not work out (and I am not assuming here that he is some jerk serial cheater or abuser). Life should not be easy-come-easy-go and for most it isn't. But absolutely no one should be punished into staying in a bad marriage. Tell me, to spouses actually get a kick living with someone who does not love them or vice-versa? Am I somewhat blessed not to be married (though I belive in marriage) ? Holy Moly I do feel sorry for many. Dom Well, what about those marriages where people divorce only after 2 years marriage, well, because they are "tired" of each other? You know, like somoene gets tired of a new pair of shoes? Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted September 29, 2008 Share Posted September 29, 2008 Divorce should be $300 and a no required waiting period for an additional Tax amount of $1000.00 Think of how that would help with the economy! I think you should be able to file online and just split everything accumulated in the marriage 50/50. He gets the toaster.... and she gets the coffee maker..... now have a nice day! Govt. is way too wrapped up in peoples personal lives. I don't understand why the govt tries to prevent/hinder it. It seems to me divorce is a personal choice. Link to post Share on other sites
george35 Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 If it is "finances" which are forcing "marriages" to stay together, it isn't something to celebrate, it is the most pathetic thing in the world. Like two shaggy, broke, smelly college roomates tolerating each other with the contempt just under the surface. Only where there is genuine love, genuine emotional feeling in a marriage is that marriage respectable--a real marriage. Divorce laws should be changed so that the wife (or whichever spouse) cannot claim to leave a man high and dry and broke if for whatever reason the marriage does not work out (and I am not assuming here that he is some jerk serial cheater or abuser). Life should not be easy-come-easy-go and for most it isn't. But absolutely no one should be punished into staying in a bad marriage. Tell me, to spouses actually get a kick living with someone who does not love them or vice-versa? Am I somewhat blessed not to be married (though I belive in marriage) ? Holy Moly I do feel sorry for many. Dom It was finances or the lack of that kept most marriages together back in the day. All marriages, (most), will go through a few rough patches through there course but if it’s too easy to end it, and it is, then people will walk away, and they do. Divorce is a luxury that money can afford and it doesn’t take much of that anymore. Pathetic or not it has something to do with preserving or protecting “the family unit”, (kids and a stay home parent). You’re absolutely right; no one should be forced to stay in a bad marriage and that’s why divorce is an option. But I think they should be motivated to try and keep the marriage from going bad. Everyone changes and you either commit to growing together or you will grow apart. No one ever divorces the same person they married and where in love with, well.. except Brittney Spears. I also think that people need to take marriage more seriously, otherwise don’t get married. To; a4a; The government has little to do with marriage, people get married. The government doesn’t make it expensive to divorce, people and their lawyers do. If you don’t like or agree with marriage in the first place no one will force you to get married, you will get a lot of pressure but no one will force you. Marriage is a lot of things but I really don’t believe its part of a grand conspiracy the government has cooked up to make us all miserable. We have to except responsibility for that one all on our own. Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 It was finances or the lack of that kept most marriages together back in the day. All marriages, (most), will go through a few rough patches through there course but if it’s too easy to end it, and it is, then people will walk away, and they do. Divorce is a luxury that money can afford and it doesn’t take much of that anymore. Pathetic or not it has something to do with preserving or protecting “the family unit”, (kids and a stay home parent). You’re absolutely right; no one should be forced to stay in a bad marriage and that’s why divorce is an option. But I think they should be motivated to try and keep the marriage from going bad. Everyone changes and you either commit to growing together or you will grow apart. No one ever divorces the same person they married and where in love with, well.. except Brittney Spears. I also think that people need to take marriage more seriously, otherwise don’t get married. To; a4a; The government has little to do with marriage, people get married. The government doesn’t make it expensive to divorce, people and their lawyers do. If you don’t like or agree with marriage in the first place no one will force you to get married, you will get a lot of pressure but no one will force you. Marriage is a lot of things but I really don’t believe its part of a grand conspiracy the government has cooked up to make us all miserable. We have to except responsibility for that one all on our own. Ahhhhh...... why are tax dollars spent on the Healthy Marriage Initiative - also tax breaks for those married - insurance- property rights..... Yada yada ya........ so yes the govt awards those that marry. The govt does cause people to have to wait to divorce. You can spend a year waiting. Law not choice. So yes the govt is involved and it should not be. It should be a civil contract not one overseen by state laws and federal laws in regards to taxation and property rights. You are taxed on your decision of a personal relationship..... kinda amazing if you think about it. Link to post Share on other sites
Woggle Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 A prenup before marriage should be required and in the event of a divorce it should be followed. Divorce should be free as well. You go to court, they devide things up according to the prenup and you both go on with your life. This would make things easier. Link to post Share on other sites
LakesideDream Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Divorce should be $300 and a no required waiting period for an additional Tax amount of $1000.00 Think of how that would help with the economy! I think you should be able to file online and just split everything accumulated in the marriage 50/50. He gets the toaster.... and she gets the coffee maker..... now have a nice day! Govt. is way too wrapped up in peoples personal lives. I don't understand why the govt tries to prevent/hinder it. It seems to me divorce is a personal choice. That's almost exactly the way it is in the State of Nevada. You can be divorced in 1 hour from time of filing, if you arrive at the courthouse at the proper time. Average uncontested divorce is 6 days, mine took 72 hours. Just do your paperwork, decide on the spit of assets, sign and Notary, and Poof you are divorced. No lawyers need be present at any point in the proccess. Even with that being the case. 76% of Nevada divorces are contested because people cannot agree on what's "fair" they need a judge to do it for them. You idea is sound. It just seldom works. Link to post Share on other sites
Author Bells Posted September 30, 2008 Author Share Posted September 30, 2008 Ahhhhh...... why are tax dollars spent on the Healthy Marriage Initiative - also tax breaks for those married - insurance- property rights..... Yada yada ya........ so yes the govt awards those that marry. The govt does cause people to have to wait to divorce. You can spend a year waiting. Law not choice. So yes the govt is involved and it should not be. It should be a civil contract not one overseen by state laws and federal laws in regards to taxation and property rights. You are taxed on your decision of a personal relationship..... kinda amazing if you think about it. Yeah, kinda like raising the price of tobacco products, figured I would discourage people from smoking? Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 Yeah, kinda like raising the price of tobacco products, figured I would discourage people from smoking? Didn't work I am smoking one now! fresh and minty! Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 That's almost exactly the way it is in the State of Nevada. You can be divorced in 1 hour from time of filing, if you arrive at the courthouse at the proper time. Average uncontested divorce is 6 days, mine took 72 hours. Just do your paperwork, decide on the spit of assets, sign and Notary, and Poof you are divorced. No lawyers need be present at any point in the proccess. Even with that being the case. 76% of Nevada divorces are contested because people cannot agree on what's "fair" they need a judge to do it for them. You idea is sound. It just seldom works. You have to be a resident to do so... and many just want a divorce and they should be able to do so in their own state the same way. 24% would benefit from this being available in every state? Link to post Share on other sites
Dominique Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 It was finances or the lack of that kept most marriages together back in the day. All marriages, (most), will go through a few rough patches through there course but if it’s too easy to end it, and it is, then people will walk away, and they do. Divorce is a luxury that money can afford and it doesn’t take much of that anymore. Pathetic or not it has something to do with preserving or protecting “the family unit”, (kids and a stay home parent). You’re absolutely right; no one should be forced to stay in a bad marriage and that’s why divorce is an option. But I think they should be motivated to try and keep the marriage from going bad. Everyone changes and you either commit to growing together or you will grow apart. No one ever divorces the same person they married and where in love with, well.. except Brittney Spears. I also think that people need to take marriage more seriously, otherwise don’t get married. I agree with most of what you say here. Only to add: - I do think that "back in the day" there was more of a "committment to committment", what we call today "old fashioned values", more long term morals, that went beyond just financial considerations... - I think most people do want to preserve a family unit and protect their children. But I think we also see that to be thoroughly depressed in a marriage does little for "family" or for the children. I think it is the attention to the children from the parents which matters, rather than an ice-cold atmosphere in the house for the sake of theater... -Completely agree that the marriage partners should each be extremely attentive to the fact of being married, never taking each other for granted, and being responsive to the needs of the other. This is why I am somewhat for "later" marriages, after maturity, some goes at life... --Yes they should take it very seriously. Go for the "partner of your life", rather than a house-pet spouse who fulfills a schedule, wish of a parent, social pressure. You'd think this would be natural, common sense... Dom Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 It was finances or the lack of that kept most marriages together back in the day. All marriages, (most), will go through a few rough patches through there course but if it’s too easy to end it, and it is, then people will walk away, and they do. Divorce is a luxury that money can afford and it doesn’t take much of that anymore. Pathetic or not it has something to do with preserving or protecting “the family unit”, (kids and a stay home parent). You’re absolutely right; no one should be forced to stay in a bad marriage and that’s why divorce is an option. But I think they should be motivated to try and keep the marriage from going bad. Everyone changes and you either commit to growing together or you will grow apart. No one ever divorces the same person they married and where in love with, well.. except Brittney Spears. I also think that people need to take marriage more seriously, otherwise don’t get married. I agree with most of what you say here. Only to add: - I do think that "back in the day" there was more of a "committment to committment", what we call today "old fashioned values", more long term morals, that went beyond just financial considerations... - I think most people do want to preserve a family unit and protect their children. But I think we also see that to be thoroughly depressed in a marriage does little for "family" or for the children. I think it is the attention to the children from the parents which matters, rather than an ice-cold atmosphere in the house for the sake of theater... -Completely agree that the marriage partners should each be extremely attentive to the fact of being married, never taking each other for granted, and being responsive to the needs of the other. This is why I am somewhat for "later" marriages, after maturity, some goes at life... --Yes they should take it very seriously. Go for the "partner of your life", rather than a house-pet spouse who fulfills a schedule, wish of a parent, social pressure. You'd think this would be natural, common sense... Dom Back in the day abuse was not reported. Back in the day affairs were hush hush and had to be tolerated. Back in the day one income household was the norm..... and you could feed a family on that. Back in the day...................................................... I am trying to get a grip on the need for people to attempt to keep other peoples marriages intact. Is it like "saving" someone. A duty? If so why? Link to post Share on other sites
sadintexas Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 I know at least here in Texas, if both parties agree to the terms of the divorce, no attorney is necessary. You can purchase a divorce kit online, at the office supply store, or even get a sample of the needed paperwork from the court clerk and fill in the blanks yourself. Submit it, pay the small court costs, wait the 60 day waiting period, and get it signed by the judge. I would be willing to bet most states allow that sort of thing. The attorneys and the costs are driven by people who fight over things. The waiting period is also designed to keep people from making hasty decisions. A divorce may be filed in anger, and once people cool down, sometimes they see things more clearly. I don't think this is a bad thing. Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 http://www.divorcereform.org/StateChart2004.html 2004 info on waits and divorce rates. Link to post Share on other sites
bish Posted September 30, 2008 Share Posted September 30, 2008 A prenup before marriage should be required and in the event of a divorce it should be followed. Divorce should be free as well. You go to court, they devide things up according to the prenup and you both go on with your life. This would make things easier. Prenups are pretty much obsolete. In today's world, unless someone is filthy rich, the spouse seeking 1/2 marital assets will get just that....1/2 the marital assets. In other words 1/2 of that which was accumulated while married. bank account and property each spouse owned before being married is pretty much untouchable. Just as my xW wasn't entitled to any property I owned before we were married and not entitled to any retirement I accumulated before marriage. Anything accumulated during a marriage both parties are entitled to. As wrong as it is in some people's books that someone gets 1/2 of whatever retirement accumulated while married for doing nothing more than being a cheating louse, thats just the way it is. Link to post Share on other sites
george35 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Ahhhhh...... why are tax dollars spent on the Healthy Marriage Initiative - also tax breaks for those married - insurance- property rights..... Yada yada ya........ so yes the govt awards those that marry. The govt does cause people to have to wait to divorce. You can spend a year waiting. Law not choice. So yes the govt is involved and it should not be. It should be a civil contract not one overseen by state laws and federal laws in regards to taxation and property rights. You are taxed on your decision of a personal relationship..... kinda amazing if you think about it. Married people generally do NOT get any special tax breaks. In fact, in MANY cases a married couple will pay more tax than 2 singles -- sometimes a LOT more. The filing requirement amount for a Single is $8,750 for 2007. For a married couple filing a joint return it's exactly double that amount -- $17,500. Now look at the tax rate schedules for Singles and joint filers and you'll see that the bracket amounts are exactly double as well. This means that a married couple filing a joint return will pay about the same tax as 2 singles. To the penny in many cases. But let's consider 2 special cases where a married couple may pay MUCH more tax than 2 singles. The first is a couple collecting Social Security. Contrary to common belief, Social Security benefits ARE taxable if your income is high enough. There's a base amount that enters into the calculation based upon your filing status. For a Single, it's $25,000. For a married couple filing jointly, it's $32,000. Hmmm... Quite a bit LESS than double! And for a married couple filing separately, it's $0! If 1/2 of your SS benefits plus all other income are greater than your base amount, up to 85% of your SS benefits are taxable. It doesn't take a math major to see that a married couple may pay quite a bit more in taxes than 2 singles, and I know of at least 3 elderly couples who divorced for exactly that reason. They still live together as husband and wife, but save a TON in taxes since their divorces. Now lets look at 2 single parents, each with 2 children and about $20,000 in income. They each file as Head of Household, giving them a combined non-taxable base income of $22,500 -- quite a bit more than the $17,500 of a married couple. And they each pull down about $4,000 in EIC payments that will disappear if they marry since their combined income is above the EIC ceiling. Their tax hit can be as much as $9,000! So, you tell me where those tax "breaks" are that you're whining about? Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Married people generally do NOT get any special tax breaks. In fact, in MANY cases a married couple will pay more tax than 2 singles -- sometimes a LOT more. The filing requirement amount for a Single is $8,750 for 2007. For a married couple filing a joint return it's exactly double that amount -- $17,500. Now look at the tax rate schedules for Singles and joint filers and you'll see that the bracket amounts are exactly double as well. This means that a married couple filing a joint return will pay about the same tax as 2 singles. To the penny in many cases. But let's consider 2 special cases where a married couple may pay MUCH more tax than 2 singles. The first is a couple collecting Social Security. Contrary to common belief, Social Security benefits ARE taxable if your income is high enough. There's a base amount that enters into the calculation based upon your filing status. For a Single, it's $25,000. For a married couple filing jointly, it's $32,000. Hmmm... Quite a bit LESS than double! And for a married couple filing separately, it's $0! If 1/2 of your SS benefits plus all other income are greater than your base amount, up to 85% of your SS benefits are taxable. It doesn't take a math major to see that a married couple may pay quite a bit more in taxes than 2 singles, and I know of at least 3 elderly couples who divorced for exactly that reason. They still live together as husband and wife, but save a TON in taxes since their divorces. Now lets look at 2 single parents, each with 2 children and about $20,000 in income. They each file as Head of Household, giving them a combined non-taxable base income of $22,500 -- quite a bit more than the $17,500 of a married couple. And they each pull down about $4,000 in EIC payments that will disappear if they marry since their combined income is above the EIC ceiling. Their tax hit can be as much as $9,000! So, you tell me where those tax "breaks" are that you're whining about? I guess they need a better accountant! Since I have been married our taxes are now about a third less for both of us. No kids to write off. Who the hell is whining..... I pay the married tax rate. Thanks for letting me know I am getting screwed! Another reason to allow for a speedy divorce! And totally agree about people benefitting from not marrying in later years. I know two people that would lose their pension benefits from a deceased spouse if they remarried. Again all the way around this conversation itself proves the govt. should stay out of the personal decision of M between two people regardless of what side of M you are on. Link to post Share on other sites
angryyoungman70 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 I'm currently living in a camping trailer, handing over 75% of my income to support my ex and kids, since she is not working full time. I have no washroom, no tv, and limited funds to really do anything except survive. I am however happier than I have been for the last 18 years. Everyone I know notices a huge change in my demeanor. The kids and finances were the only things keeping us together. Link to post Share on other sites
george35 Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 Back in the day abuse was not reported. Back in the day affairs were hush hush and had to be tolerated. Back in the day one income household was the norm..... and you could feed a family on that. Back in the day...................................................... I am trying to get a grip on the need for people to attempt to keep other peoples marriages intact. Is it like "saving" someone. A duty? If so why? So who is your accountant, it sounds like I should be using him… hmmm, have you ever been audited? jk. Link to post Share on other sites
a4a Posted October 1, 2008 Share Posted October 1, 2008 So who is your accountant, it sounds like I should be using him… hmmm, have you ever been audited? jk. matter a fact yes have dealt with the IRS because of a previous employer got the shake down. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts