|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Aug 7, 2020 12:41:13 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Aug 7, 2020 14:04:13 GMT -5
....“You want to be friends and get together, when I say it’s okay to get together? Fine. But to be in a relationship where I have to answer to somebody else? Been there, done that, don’t want to do it again."
Those are the words I hear most often.
|
|
|
|
Post by greatcoastal on Aug 7, 2020 19:14:36 GMT -5
The "Living Apart Together LAT" is something that my woman and I decided to do.
Only we have decided that being together every night, same bed, every day same house, IS what WE want. While she keeps her address and a room at her current residence.
It remains a " continual courtship" as the article stated.
Money, IS a factor. Me receiving my alimony. Something this article does not mention. Perhaps a strong factor in why getting married again is not an option.
I also liked the part about "having to much stuff in both households."
My brief experience in the dating world showed me women who were living with their parents and where 'very interested in me' because I had my own house with lots of room. Not all. Just my short experience. I can easily see where woman run into the same problem/circumstances. Men who are back to living with their parents, or a one bedroom apartment and want a woman with her own house.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Aug 7, 2020 21:39:54 GMT -5
I often thought that SOME women that want LAT relationships just had more friends than the guy and feared a new guy might put a damper on some of her old friends. Another idea that I had was, women not in relationships figured most of the men in her cohort had some form of problems. LAT provided her an easy out if those suspected problems ever materialized. And then there is the money issue. Some women fear losing what they have if they live with a guy. This also goes for her kids, "No one is going to get Mom's money."
I am certain some older women want to live with their man, what percentage, I don't know.
My W wanted to have a LAT, and wanted me to build her a house across the street. I said no way.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Aug 8, 2020 0:09:44 GMT -5
My idea is why pay for rent or mortgage / taxes / insurance on 2 places. That is a lot of extra play money down the drain. My practical side is showing again.
|
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Aug 8, 2020 4:15:18 GMT -5
This is an interesting topic which I think about a fair bit when considering my future. My thinking is as follows:
As described in the other posts I have no intention of co-mingling my finances again. I wish for my children to financially benefit from my affluence (such as it is). As a financially independent woman I also have zero intention of supporting a man because he is bankrupted by supporting a bone idle SAH ex-spouse. That really is not going to happen. Apologies if that is painful to hear for the many already or potentially gouged by the frankly outrageous financial consequences of divorce in other parts of the world.
I will also be maintaining my own home no matter what. After my miserable excuse of a M I need to know that I have a safe base of my own. The idea of being very together but living together on a part time basis is very attractive. Stay a few nights per week, visit places together and holidays, sure. Emotionally secure, engaged and committed. But, clear off for a bit and give me my space!
So that is what my brain screams. However, I am massively romantic, and never do anything half heartedly. I repeated the above to my best friend who laughed and told me it was complete rubbish. “Lovely idea but I have seen you loved up, you would have given him a kidney in a heartbeat”. This is true. If I am lucky enough to love again my heart is likely to take the lead and he gets all of me. Every £GBP, moment of time and be my priority in all things. I’m not sure I can override it when loved up, because despite my crappy M I am still me.
These are the dilemmas about new relationships in middle age which just did not exist first time around when I had little materially but much time to come. It is complicated okay. I will be interested to see how this thread develops to see how typical or not my thinking is.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Aug 8, 2020 11:33:01 GMT -5
Isthisit
bankrupted by supporting a bone idle SAH ex-spouse. That is refreshing to hear. On so many forums many women are for the Ex-W to get all she can because she supposedly gave the H the best years of her life to raise "HIS" kids. My take is most women wanted the kids more than the H. At least my W was in charge of the "kid" population. I was OK with her decisions.
It is refreshing to hear women saying Ex W don't merit lifetime financial support.
|
|
|
|
Post by isthisit on Aug 8, 2020 17:32:10 GMT -5
Isthisit
bankrupted by supporting a bone idle SAH ex-spouse. That is refreshing to hear. On so many forums many women are for the Ex-W to get all she can because she supposedly gave the H the best years of her life to raise "HIS" kids. My take is most women wanted the kids more than the H. At least my W was in charge of the "kid" population. I was OK with her decisions.
It is refreshing to hear women saying Ex W don't merit lifetime financial support.
Yeah well, my guess is that those women baying for the financial blood of the poor guy are likely bone idle too. So, these women give the best years of their lives bringing up HIS kids huh? Charming. Handy I do not buy into the ‘sisterhood’ thing. I have said it before and will probably say it again. PEOPLE are parents, and PEOPLE are financially responsible for themselves. I just do not understand why men tolerate this. Is it an ego rush to be the provider? Or a demonstration of affluence that you can afford a wife to do sod all? Or just socially conditioned this way? Whatever the reason the cost is high for the hubris. |
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Aug 8, 2020 18:07:42 GMT -5
Isthisit
Or just socially conditioned this way? Mostly I suppose, socially conditioned, because some men don't even pay child support and this goes against men in general. The courts seem to try to balance out the dead beats against the guys that do pay child support. My neighbor quit his pay-check job and went to self employment and only took cash tor the work he did to pay less or no child support. I don't know how much spousal support was determined by the court. Another big factor is the ex W's ability to earn an income right at the time of divorce. I did an internship with an agency that predicts future potential employment income for disabled and divorced people. Most of the clients were men that got hurt on the job. The agency looked at transferable skills and training programs to help the injured worker to get back to work. There were a few divorced women cases but I didn't get to participate in those cases. I knew some things about men's work and what it took to try to get back to a some what comparable income with some extra training. The "Rehab Manager and a senior woman did the divorce cases. This type of evaluation and future job possibilities took a minimum of a masters degree and several years of on the job experience. I do know some women (SAHM) got spousal support for 2 to 6 years. Some of the women's retraining programs included 4 years of college so the Ex W could qualify to become a teacher in a remote school district, and them in maybe 5 years get a teaching job in a town she liked that was more popular. On the men's side, wow, a man with a 6th grade education, driving truck for 30+ years, that made lots of money driving, well it was difficult to formulate decent paying job plan for him, let alone actual retraining and a decent job.
Edit The courts do a lot of saying what guys have to pay a spouse, for how long, plus the child support stuff. That is sometimes fixed in stone and difficult to counter act in some areas.
|
|
|
|
Post by worksforme2 on Aug 8, 2020 18:17:59 GMT -5
Isthisit
bankrupted by supporting a bone idle SAH ex-spouse. That is refreshing to hear. On so many forums many women are for the Ex-W to get all she can because she supposedly gave the H the best years of her life to raise "HIS" kids. It is refreshing to hear women saying Ex W don't merit lifetime financial support.
I heard this argument when I was in my 20's. My thought was , didn't the husband also give the best years of his life to her and his family? Why should this be considered as a valid criteria for rewarding a woman for doing what she more often than not, choose to do? Many if not most women in my generation made the choice to be a SAHM. It's true enough that starting a career after age 45-50 would be a difficult and challenging task. And I don't think it unreasonable that some level of support be provided as she trained or educated herself to provide for a stable future. But the notion that anyone, male or female, is deserving of a lifetime free ride is unjust, and I pity the poor victim who has to provide that support. |
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Aug 8, 2020 18:33:24 GMT -5
worksforme2, like I said before, my W was the one pushing for kids. Her plan made sense and was how things were when I grew up, so that is what I thought was normal. women working back then like they do now, that wasn't common. Women only worked if they didn't have kids or the family was broke and in debt.
There is a guy on the "talk about marriage" forum that wants a divorce. He had a $100K job and got laid off and now has a $55K a year job. The divorce decree states he has to pay the Ex W $40K a year and pay for the kids college and he has to have a sizeable life insurance policy just in-case he dies so the Ex W gets $$$$ when he is dead. The H is in NC and the W moved to TX temporarily. Because he didn't sign the divorce agreement, the soon to be ExW is spending money and he is stuck for half of her bills. The kids live with him because the W is only temporarily ( actually over a year) living in TX to take care of her parents. Talk about a screwed court judgement system. This takes the cake.
I think Ironmaster got a raw deal too.
|
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Aug 8, 2020 21:00:13 GMT -5
OK ladies, write my "what if divorce settlement." Include a house 4 cars a decent retirement fund (to me).
I get a social security check 3 times more $$ than my W because I worked more hours and longer than she did. Some of that was her choosing. When she did work, she earned more per hour than I did but I worked way more hours. Could she work now-yes but she wouldn't. I occasionally/rarely work part time. I want the 3 old cars (1990 Dodge Caravan, a 2009 sub compact, and some very old car parts that make up part of a car, my tools and a decent percentage of the value of the house and retirement fund. What % of the house and retirement account do I get to keep? Straw Poll. |
|
|
|
Post by Handy on Aug 8, 2020 21:07:14 GMT -5
I thought about LTA more. If the relationship works well (physical, emotional, time and money wise) I guess I am good with it. I am thinking about Greatcoastal's situation and something similar for me would be great.
|
|
|
|
Post by baza on Aug 9, 2020 1:49:54 GMT -5
It is as well to keep in mind that no two (or more) divorces are the same.
The financial sums and levels of complexity vary from case to case, and the law might vary from jurisdiction to jurisdiction.
Hence the suggestion often floated in here to "see a lawyer in your jurisdiction to establish how a divorce would shake out for you".
That's what you need to know .... how YOUR unique situation would shake out in YOUR jurisdiction.
That's the situation you are confronted with.
What the law might be in Bumfuck Idaho is not particularly relevant, (unless you live in that marvelous city of which I have heard so much about)
|
|
|
|
Post by DryCreek on Aug 9, 2020 2:27:36 GMT -5
What % of the house and retirement account do I get to keep? Straw Poll. You’re typically looking at an even split of the assets, with some of your assets being received as old cars. I’m sure, given the choice, she would rather have the cash equivalent of the cars. The question a local lawyer would need to answer is, how much of your Social Security income are you required to give her on an ongoing basis? It doesn’t much matter that you’re receiving more because you worked more. The guy on the marriage talk forum you mentioned... that scenario is not far from the truth. (It varies by locale, but would be true for me after 30 years.) Her alimony is typically based on his demonstrated earning ability, not current income, to keep guys from gaming the system. Especially in the current climate, he should have been able to argue for a reduction; otherwise in 2-3 years, he can petition the court for a reduction based on his more recent demonstrated earnings. These extras may be baked into his figure, but he didn’t mention that a) he has to pay the income tax on the alimony, b) he probably has to pay for her health insurance, and c) it’s reduced by her earning potential, which defaults to minimum wage if she doesn’t already have an income. Now, if he were smart, he’d pack up the house and move to Texas to support her. And then re-file the divorce there, where they don’t have alimony. |
|
