Alimony should be abolished.

Child support should be capped at 20% of income up to a maximum of $20,000 / year.

Why is nobody fighting for this? Why are people focusing on gay marriage or telling others to go MGTOW instead of fighting for obvious solutions?

Should we close down casinos, too?

These are grown men who knowingly rolled the dice, and lost. If you get married in a state with alimony you were aware of the risk already, so nobody is going to feel bad for you if things go south.

Anytime I get some chick pregnant I just move to where there's no child support. Yeah, you have to acquire a new identity, but it's still cheaper than sending a kid to private school.

You already do pay for it.Or, we could not have a crab mentality and just fix the problem? No need to play these dumb games, just do the right thing.

Well it is a state level issue so it would take action at the state level.

Alimony has been on the way out for some time now.




It looks like this site lists specifics by state:

https://www.justia.com/family/divorc...ate-resources/


I believe quite a few states require a marriage of 10 years or longer to get any spousal support and then there is a formula to calculate the amount and the duration.


I don't have a whole lot of empathy for whining about child support. I don't believe it should be punitive or profitable to the parent receiving it, but keeping both family homes within some relative proximity financially should make the parent-child relationship more balanced.

because 50% of the population are strong women that dont need no man, except to pay housing, food, utilities, clothing.

lmao

jews really did a number on us with feminism

It makes no sense. Just cause daddy is rich, it means the kid gets a rich life ? Nevermind that 99% of the time the money is being used by the woman for her own purposes. And if daddy really did care, he would cough up extra money on top of the mandatory.

That's why I propose 20% of income up to $20,000 max.

That just sounds silly to me.

- how many children?

- cost of living in the area?

- standard of living as a family prior to splitting up?

So a guy with 3 kids in a HCOL area splits with his wife. He makes $250K a year. Ex was a SAHM. And he should only pay $20K a year?

In many places just a nothing special 3 bedroom apartment will be over $20K a year without any utilities included.

Simple. In that situation, why is the wife getting the kids? And maybe the wife should think twice before divorcing.

bitch better get working then. an ex husbamd should not be a meal ticket

Ai. Miscers.

You don't know why they are divorcing. And if she has been a SAHM and has 3 kids she probably hasn't worked in 9 years or better. A job at In-N-Out won't get her too far- and that is assuming that all of the children are in school so she has at least a chance of working without having to pay for childcare.

Even if they share custody 50/50 there would be child support awarded and probably at least temporary spousal support.

How is that a response to what I said? Child support is for KIDS. Pay for their food, clothes etc. 20k is more than enough for that. If mommy can't support herself, can't afford a house, maybe she should think twice about divorce and definitely think twice about taking custody. If she can't afford it, let the kids stay with daddy. If daddy doesn't want them, he should give them to mommy on a mutually agreed upon, non-legal spousal support.

Yeah alimony made sense back in the day when women couldn't get careers, but it's been outdated for the past 30+ years now.

As for child support, men should have the ability to "financially abort." If a woman can abort within 12 weeks, men should have 12 weeks to avoid parenting as well.

Preach brother

Exactly. Such obvious solutions yet we do nothing about it. I don't understand how men collectively allow themselves to get divorce-raped.

I like this idea. There are far too many dads out there spending way too much money fighting an extremely biased court system when they are very clearly the better option by every measurable metric and actually want the responsibility of raising their crotch fruit.

Well it isn't like if one party wants a divorce that the other party can block it from happening. I don't think anyone gets married PLANNING to be divorced.

And if you married someone and THEN had children you can't exactly be like "whoopsie, didn't mean to make a baby with you".
So then no woman should ever under any circumstances agree to be a SAHM because she will be taking an outsize risk relative to her working husband.

I mean if you are going to be punitive regarding financial support in a divorce should we even allow SAHMs? Should that even be legal?

Or maybe she should only be a SAHM if she becomes a paid employee of her spouse? Like they have a legal paid employment contract with benefits and PTO? A retirement plan?

The dude should at least get the option to compare the cost of child support @ shared custody vs a full time nanny @ full custody and be allowed to choose whichever is cheaper.

Then DON'T get married then or don't be a SAHM, or don't be a sl00t and respect your husband.

It's been like this since the dawn of time, only recently when women realize that they can weaponize divorce did divorce rates shoot up and make the whole institution worthless. Men have had the power to weaponize divorce since the dawn of time yet they repeatedly choose to keep the family together. That's the difference.

And I love how you treat being a mom, raising your own kids like being a wagie employee nanny. Absolutely disgusting.

I think if a woman can terminate her responsibilities so can a man. At the same time I don't support deadbeat dads as they are apart of it as well.

I don't have a problem with wanting people to take marriage more seriously. Though the trend seems to be towards people just not bothering with it at all.

And you are assuming that the wife wanted the divorce and initiated it. How do you know that the husband didn't just decide he wanted to trade for someone younger? Or someone in better health?

Because I've read plenty of firsthand accounts of women who either have become ill themselves or have children with special needs that made life more difficult following which their husbands split.
How old are you? The increase in divorce had more to do with more women working and divorces becoming easier to get [no fault] than with women "weaponizing divorce".

If you personally are so scared of being hard done by then just don't get married. Simple as.

Increase in divorce happens when women realized they have absolutely zero drawbacks to getting one and is actually beneficial for them. And we all know how emotional women get, omg he wasn't paying attention to me because he spends all his time working to provide for the family boom divorce papers. Boom collecting alimony. Boom collecting child support payments.

Just don't get married? That's exactly what is happening as there is ZERO benefits for men to ever get married. Now is that a solution for a healthy society?

There is a big difference between men and women weaponizing divorce. When women have the power, they will almost ALWAYS choose divorce. When men have the power, they will almost ALWAYS keep the family together. This is proven by modern vs old marriages.

Yeah, that's not so much how it looked. What you are describing when you say "men had the power" is that women had no power.

Men weren't "choosing to keep their family together" so much as the were often choosing to keep their almost free housekeeper and nanny under their thumb even if the man was really awful. Meanwhile they would have side chicks for entertainment.

Once more women were working those women had an out- they could leave the marriage without becoming completely destitute. No fault divorce + alimony and child support cracked that door open for SAHMs.
To me this attitude says that marriage is really over. If the point of marriage is to raise children and the breakup of the marriage means you lose your children, then what even is the point?

Just end the entire concept/contract.

DNA test at birth. Garnish wages from the sperm donor unless the mom uses a sperm bank and signs on the dotted line to take full responsibility.

Your whole narrative is shattered by the simple fact that society was better and more functional when people stayed married. Up until the past 50 years of human society, marriage was a foundational institution, all it took was for "women" to get power and all of a sudden marriage is worthless. Thanks women, you are the reason why society is declining.

I demand equal rights for everyone and equal pay!! But don’t take my 50% of my spouse’s income! Lmao, feminists…

It is a big money maker for a lot of people. The state, its employees, the entire system is supported by single hardworking fathers. My friends dad was locked up for back child support even though his two sons were living with him full time. Just lol.


For any man out there in the crosshairs of a scorned woman, immediately find a way to be self employed. Learn a skilled trade or any kind of marketable skill and beat the system. Create a business and pay yourself out of said business a slightly above min wage. Hide that money!!

If your a man paying child support just know the money isn't going towards the kids. It is going to here getting her back broken by deadbeat Tyrones and chads.

I don't disagree that society was more functional when families were more stable.

I'm saying that in traditional marriage where a woman is a homemaker and mother, not a member of the paid labor force, that the risk for the woman relative to the man is too high.

Because you seem to be advocating for easy divorces where either party can end the marriage and the one with less money or income potential is just screwed.

I mean why divorce? She would be smarter to kill off her crappy husband. I know that in misc world it seem that all husbands are noble selfless providers but IRL their are good and bad in both sexes.
The point is to form a family. Sometimes people are just shallow and self-serving, and sometimes relationships are really toxic and miserable.

If you want to quibble about the grounds for divorce that's fine. One used to have to have grounds for divorce- cheating, abuse, addiction, and so on.

Maybe bring back shame about getting a divorce?

But you won't stop divorces from happening anyway. People who want out will manufacture a cause, or just walk out and never come back.

Sort of like you can censor a word as offensive, but you can't censor a thought- people will just use a different word with the same implied meaning.

This idea that whichever parent has more money is more deserving of the children is crap. Someone can be quite financially successful and still a complete ****.

itt OP wants to promote more degeneracy in society

brb more fatherless children who grow up to be beta ******* miscers or criminals

As opposed to shifting risk to the men today? One leads to declining society, the other doesn't.
Why don't WOMEN choose to not get married? Why do you force men to make that choice?

Your whole argumentation is shattered by the reality that the vast, vast majority of marriages in the previous generations were functional. Women did their job. Men didn't cheat. Families stayed together. All I'm asking is the shifting to the system that actually WORKS. Alimony and child support are NOT good for society and marriage.

Yes, because society has been degenerate and so many people grew up fatherless prior to the last 50 years.

Why do you care? You'll never be married nor will you reproduce. You've been culled from the gene pool and don't even realize it.