Never been happier
![Never been happier. . This 'lall! ll! checks of him and his lill] wife printed so 'itll', could write alimony checks to his ex.. Still losing money on her.](http://2static.fjcdn.com/pictures/Never+been+happier_b8db95_5768697.jpg "Never been happier")
This 'lall! ll! checks of him and his
lill] wife printed so 'itll', could write
alimony checks to his ex.
lill] wife printed so 'itll', could write
alimony checks to his ex.
...
| |
Anonymous comments allowed.
120 comments displayed.
#19 to #18
-
iqequalzero (12/14/2015) [-] Nope.
Child support = Im raising the kids but you gotta help even if they arent your day to day responsibility anymore = Fair and reasonable.
Alimony = I used to **** you at one point, so now you gotta pay me even though you arent renting the space anymore.
Child support = Im raising the kids but you gotta help even if they arent your day to day responsibility anymore = Fair and reasonable.
Alimony = I used to **** you at one point, so now you gotta pay me even though you arent renting the space anymore.
#93 to #19
-
chopsaw (12/14/2015) [-]
if i could chime in the idea of alimony is that in that scenario say the wife stayed at home and watched the kid while the father worked to support the family, they get a divorce, and have 50/50 possession of the kid, so no child support. the wife is still gonna want alimony because she sacrificed her opportunity to get a job and climb the corporate ladder and because of this requires money from the ex husband to make up for it. what i don't like is that a lot of time they get half the money the dad makes or close to it, and that's ******** , because he still has to work his regular 40 hours and then come home and clean the house while the wife can clean the house and then sit around for the rest of the day and get the same amount (or close to the same) money.
#48 to #18
-
thunderchild (12/14/2015) [-] The theory is that say a cashier is married to a lawyer they divorce she can't support herself never needed to. So ex sends money.
I used to think bs. But my dad cheated on my mother, and left she had no higher ed, suffers from depression and other issue that really kept her from going to school earlier in lufe. She can barely live if she works two jobs. Because pop wanted to chest and have a white family then she starves. A lot of people abuse it but some people need it. Right now I just moved into an apartment I pay the rent etc but she moved in because she has nowhere to go. :/
I used to think bs. But my dad cheated on my mother, and left she had no higher ed, suffers from depression and other issue that really kept her from going to school earlier in lufe. She can barely live if she works two jobs. Because pop wanted to chest and have a white family then she starves. A lot of people abuse it but some people need it. Right now I just moved into an apartment I pay the rent etc but she moved in because she has nowhere to go. :/
#60 to #58
-
thunderchild (12/14/2015) [-] My dad. Just left one day didn't say a word left took his. **** and was gone. Mom had two jobs one more or less full time one part time woman worked 12 hours most days never had a full day iff. She just barely made it. I moved home to help her out. This was a **** hole 550 a month, I payed for food internet insurance anything but rent and power and water . This was her basically doing nothing but working to get by. Then one of her jobs went bankrupt. She went from scraping by to needing help. My mom is not a bright lady she was a c student and suffers depression no way she could go to school if she had time . prior to this because pops was wasting money on trying to run a business she had always had s job and raised me and bro. No real opportunity to go to school. I'm sure it could of happened it it was s family priority but the thought never even occured. So when **** head left she's treading water giving it literally everything she could. Just
#68 to #60
-
tealcanaan (12/14/2015) [-] Are you even trying to write coherently, or is this how mulattoes normally type?
#70 to #69
-
tealcanaan (12/14/2015) [-] > Because pop wanted to chest and have a white family
Read this and figured you were mixed breed.
Read this and figured you were mixed breed.
#71 to #70
-
thunderchild (12/14/2015) [-] Should have been cheat, and have a whore family auto correct is s bitch
#104 to #15
-
heartlessrobot (12/14/2015) [-] They're children, not ******* goldfish, they can get a glass of water if they're thirsty and a peanutbutter sandwich if they're hungry. Once they hit a certain age, they don't need a parent 100% of the time.
#113 to #111
-
heartlessrobot (12/17/2015) [-] Oh yes because a 13 year old, when left to their own devices for 2 hours, will immediately swallow everything under the cupboard, max out 3 credit cards, and burn the hours down, and definitely will not eat a couple pretzels and play nintendo.
#115 to #114
-
heartlessrobot (12/17/2015) [-] Did you not read #104?
I said once they hit a certain age.
I said once they hit a certain age.
#117 to #116
-
heartlessrobot (12/17/2015) [-] No, you just have to pay closer attention to them until they're old enough to not starve on their own.
#109 to #108
-
krobeles ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] First of all, this isn't 4Chan. Stop your cancerous "may-may arrows" or whatever you wanna call them.
Secoundly, what the **** you mean by "the way they are"? I assume you mean that in a negative way, but I dont know specifically what you're refering to, so how do you expect me to respond to that?
Third, are you denying that the SJW retards are indeed out to demonize and slander men? If so, you're the delusional one, not FJ. I'll gladly conceit that its a hell of a stretch to extrapolate the actions of the SJW retards onto all women, but thats hardly what the majority of people here do.
Nothing you said was right, you retarded mongoloid and you used words exclusively used by the SJW retards in order to spew your ******** .
Pic very, very related.
Secoundly, what the **** you mean by "the way they are"? I assume you mean that in a negative way, but I dont know specifically what you're refering to, so how do you expect me to respond to that?
Third, are you denying that the SJW retards are indeed out to demonize and slander men? If so, you're the delusional one, not FJ. I'll gladly conceit that its a hell of a stretch to extrapolate the actions of the SJW retards onto all women, but thats hardly what the majority of people here do.
Nothing you said was right, you retarded mongoloid and you used words exclusively used by the SJW retards in order to spew your ******** .
Pic very, very related.
#29 to #28
-
eezo (12/14/2015) [-] Oh my god yes people like you actually exist
Stupid ***** that show up 2 hours late to a closed conversation and barge in using lines that wouldn't feel out of place in The Big Bang Theory
AND THEN YOU SAID " Doing ******* retarded **** like thats a really bad idea, cunt."
I'M ******* CUMMING RIGHT NOW YES
What're you gonna do, STRIKE ME DOWN WITH YOUR POSSESSED KATANA
Stupid ***** that show up 2 hours late to a closed conversation and barge in using lines that wouldn't feel out of place in The Big Bang Theory
AND THEN YOU SAID " Doing ******* retarded **** like thats a really bad idea, cunt."
I'M ******* CUMMING RIGHT NOW YES
What're you gonna do, STRIKE ME DOWN WITH YOUR POSSESSED KATANA
#41 to #40
-
deadfed ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-]
I aint mad, Im out of work. I gotta entertain myself somehow. Youre obviously so easily riled up about stupid **** . Now ask yourself, why is a 21 year old unemployed guy awake at 7:30? I gotta get out there and find work. Funnyjunk is a guilty pleasure. You wake up and check your phone, I check funnyjunk.
#42 to #41
-
eezo (12/14/2015) [-] "I'm not mad. Sometimes I need to entertain myself to keep the demon inside sated. You're obviously so easily entertained with your small mind locked in religion. I'm merely on here because the jews are trying to keep me out of reach of my anime figurines. You ******* sheeples wake up and glue yourselves to your inferior iPhones, and I check reddit like a superior intelligence "
#61 to #42
-
doctahhobo (12/14/2015) [-] I love how these things always end in two "special" folks slinging insults and face-savers at each other. This is the reason I read the comments. Bravo you magnificent ***** . Bravo.
#50 to #2
-
abesimpson (12/14/2015) [-] Because imagine the cases where the woman can't leave an abusive husband because he financially supports her.
I'm not sure if the law specifies about gender. I thinks it's to make sure one does not lose his quality of life after getting a divorce.
Just get a prenup.
I'm not sure if the law specifies about gender. I thinks it's to make sure one does not lose his quality of life after getting a divorce.
Just get a prenup.
#75 to #73
-
abesimpson (12/14/2015) [-] I don't think it's exactly on the whim. You have to make the prenup airtight and add atleast some form of compensation I guess.
If you wrote a prenup that's basically just "if we divorce, you get nothing" then in that case he might throw it out. Get a good lawyer and make sure he makes a fair prenup.
If you wrote a prenup that's basically just "if we divorce, you get nothing" then in that case he might throw it out. Get a good lawyer and make sure he makes a fair prenup.
#81 to #75
-
skebaba (12/14/2015) [-]
"If we divorce, we each get only what we have paid for ourselves, all physical items bought together will be turned into cash and split (arrangements on the other one getting an item, and the other one getting another item, if it has emotional value, can be agreed upon on the spot)."
#62 to #2
-
anon (12/14/2015) [-] It's a little game politicians/lawyers call "feed the leech."
The goal is make sure the host is barely alive in at the end. If the host dies or in jail pick a card to determine the turn.
Congratulations, you selected 'Golden crown'. Now the parasite can prey on welfare.
The goal is make sure the host is barely alive in at the end. If the host dies or in jail pick a card to determine the turn.
Congratulations, you selected 'Golden crown'. Now the parasite can prey on welfare.
#77 to #2
-
hongkonglongdong (12/14/2015) [-]
I imagine (i.e. I'm pulling this out of my arse) it's a holdover from when women were paid significantly less than men and so were expected to have a husband (although it was the other way around); and so if they got divorced, they'd have significantly less income and be much less likely to get married (and less likely to get a job in general. The thinking was "if you can't hold down a marriage, you probably aren't very responsible, so we don't need to hire you").
#22 to #2
-
reaperriley ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] Speaking from my rents divorce which just closed out a few years ago.....
My parents were married for a little over 20 years, and for about 15 of those years my mother didnt have a job. And since she didnt have a job for 15 years in a row, that supposedly harmed her ability to get a job. It also supposedly harmed her ability to build a career because she was instead raising me and my sister. Reason I say supposedly is because they are somewhat in question. Also she was a pretty **** parent. Used my sis and me like workers more often than kids.
The logic is that the other spouse should have to pay them for making up of lost time regardless of how good the non-working parent was as a parent nor who wanted the divorce (my mother did). At least thats how the laws work in PA.
My parents were married for a little over 20 years, and for about 15 of those years my mother didnt have a job. And since she didnt have a job for 15 years in a row, that supposedly harmed her ability to get a job. It also supposedly harmed her ability to build a career because she was instead raising me and my sister. Reason I say supposedly is because they are somewhat in question. Also she was a pretty **** parent. Used my sis and me like workers more often than kids.
The logic is that the other spouse should have to pay them for making up of lost time regardless of how good the non-working parent was as a parent nor who wanted the divorce (my mother did). At least thats how the laws work in PA.
#57 to #2
-
anon (12/14/2015) [-]
The idea behind it (note: I think this is retarded as **** ) was that people would get "used to" a standard of living when married to someone who made x amount per year. The courts thought it wouldn't be "fair" to knock them out of that standard of living just because they wanted to get a divorce.
#86 to #2
-
anon (12/14/2015) [-]
Think of it this way:
A husband and wife have been married for nearly a decade. They never had children, the husband worked to support the household. The wife never worked.
If the Husband and wife were to suddenly divorce, the husband still has his job and can easily support himself. The wife however does not have a readily available job, probably lacks job experience, and any job she could get on short notice most likely would not be enough to support them. So as part of a deal either agreed upon by the former spouses, or enforced by a court, the husband will pay his ex a set amount of money every month/year so that they can support themselves until they can get a job. In most cases, this does not last forever, and alimony is becoming less and less common as woman now have equal working/earning opportunity.
A husband and wife have been married for nearly a decade. They never had children, the husband worked to support the household. The wife never worked.
If the Husband and wife were to suddenly divorce, the husband still has his job and can easily support himself. The wife however does not have a readily available job, probably lacks job experience, and any job she could get on short notice most likely would not be enough to support them. So as part of a deal either agreed upon by the former spouses, or enforced by a court, the husband will pay his ex a set amount of money every month/year so that they can support themselves until they can get a job. In most cases, this does not last forever, and alimony is becoming less and less common as woman now have equal working/earning opportunity.
#103 to #86
-
nebuelaeus (12/14/2015) [-] I think that a good update for the law would be this:
The highest earner of the family will pay the other alimony. Alimony will be 50% of the difference in earnings between the two (calculated by quarterly average), to be paid monthly for 2 years, or until the difference in earnings is equal to or less than 1/4 of the highest earner's salary.
this would allow for the person with the ******** job to survive while not pointlessly ******* over the breadwinner. If he makes 50k a year and she make 25k, then he pays her 12.5k a year. if he makes 50k and she makes nothing then she gets 25k a year until she gets a job at which point she will have another quarter of a year to get herself settled in. I they still don't have a job after 2 years then they aren't trying to find one and don't deserve the payments.
The highest earner of the family will pay the other alimony. Alimony will be 50% of the difference in earnings between the two (calculated by quarterly average), to be paid monthly for 2 years, or until the difference in earnings is equal to or less than 1/4 of the highest earner's salary.
this would allow for the person with the ******** job to survive while not pointlessly ******* over the breadwinner. If he makes 50k a year and she make 25k, then he pays her 12.5k a year. if he makes 50k and she makes nothing then she gets 25k a year until she gets a job at which point she will have another quarter of a year to get herself settled in. I they still don't have a job after 2 years then they aren't trying to find one and don't deserve the payments.
#92 to #2
-
hoponthefeelstrain (12/14/2015) [-] because in marriage vows you say you'll always provide for them. and alimony used to be a good reason. Let's say you marry a girl, and you ask he to quit her job to raise your family. Well now she's a stay at home mom with no income when you two divorce. The alimony SHOULD be until she finds a job, but some bitches wont even look for one, they need to put a time cap on alimony payments.
#16 to #2
-
iqequalzero (12/14/2015) [-] Probably something left over from a time when women were stay at home wives and didnt actually have jobs.
In the world we live in today its ******* stupid.
In the world we live in today its ******* stupid.
#34 to #2
-
emptysuperman ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] Back when women were second class citizens, it was pretty much essential for them to live. Now that woman can work, there is literally no point to it. It makes lawyers money and lawyers have a big influence in changing laws so....
#9 to #2
-
clevelandfan (12/14/2015) [-] The government assumes that whatever the family had was 50/50. So say the man worked and she didn't, even though he earned most of what they have it is still 50/50. So either he gives her some of his **** that he likes, because usually the woman is a bitch and tries to take the house, car, etc, you can pay alimony.
You know all that sexism and oppression that feminists fight against? It's pretty much the opposite of that.
Side note: Almost all women get alimony, yet somehow most of the time if the man isn't the bread winner, they get denied alimony by a judge.
You know all that sexism and oppression that feminists fight against? It's pretty much the opposite of that.
Side note: Almost all women get alimony, yet somehow most of the time if the man isn't the bread winner, they get denied alimony by a judge.
#54 to #2
-
anon (12/14/2015) [-]
Person 1: "Hey now that we're married forever how about I be the breadwinner and you be a stay at home father/mother?"
Person 2: "ayyy lmao can do #loveYou #iwillbakeforyou #kidraisingtime"
[6 years later]
Person 1: "This isn't working out. I think we should divorce"
Person 2: "Hey wtf I gave up my career because you said you'd support me. 'till death do we part. Now what do I do?"
Judge: "You said you'd support him/her, person 1. Even if you divorce, you still have to."
The idea makes sense, but the laws are a little broken (and heavily biased towards women for historical reasons). Now that women are entering the workforce and most families are double income, the laws should probably be reformed for the 21st century.
Person 2: "ayyy lmao can do #loveYou #iwillbakeforyou #kidraisingtime"
[6 years later]
Person 1: "This isn't working out. I think we should divorce"
Person 2: "Hey wtf I gave up my career because you said you'd support me. 'till death do we part. Now what do I do?"
Judge: "You said you'd support him/her, person 1. Even if you divorce, you still have to."
The idea makes sense, but the laws are a little broken (and heavily biased towards women for historical reasons). Now that women are entering the workforce and most families are double income, the laws should probably be reformed for the 21st century.
#3 to #2
-
thebluedream ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] sadly the govt assume when you divorce someone they are incapable of taking care of themselves and if you were the bread winner it is still your responsibility
#4 to #3
-
forsakensaint ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] That is the most stupid ass ******* reason... Why not assume the other person is adult and therefor should be capable of taking care of themselves?
#5 to #4
-
thebballin (12/14/2015) [-] Or at least make the Alimony run out at one point, like a years worth of Alimony. That way if you were the bread winner the other person has a whole year to get themselves back on their feet, after that they're on their own. Honestly, paying Alimony indefinitely ruins people, like poor Brendan Frasier.
#6 to #5
-
sketchysketchist (12/14/2015) [-] Poor poor Brendan Frasier.
I'm 99% confident that it's what ruined his career.
I'm 99% confident that it's what ruined his career.
#12 to #3
-
blizzeh (12/14/2015) [-] It obviously depends on what kind of wife you are, but if she's a stay-at-home kind of wife, she won't be building any kind of network as far as her career goes, and she won't be gaining any experience with the newer technologies within the fields either. It's not always justified at all, but if you enter the job market at the age of 40 with little to no experience, and an education from 15 years ago, you'll be totally boned. They could of course just work like the husband, but why should you be punished for wanting to raise your children?
#63 to #49
-
sanitarysan (12/14/2015) [-] he is saving money by not using his fridge, he now has no chill.
#85 to #67
-
reeeeeeeeeee (12/14/2015) [-] He said there's no fridge, how would it be cold?
You really aren't getting this, are you
You really aren't getting this, are you
#99 to #98
-
captainprincess ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] what'd I do
it's just the facts
I dont make the rules, I dont even like them
it's just the facts
I dont make the rules, I dont even like them
#52
-
battletechmech (12/14/2015) [-] Alimony, when you accidentally buy the long term plan for a prostitute.
#65 to #52
-
distortedflare ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] But still manage to get sex less than if you hired a one night stand.
#80
-
anon (12/14/2015) [-]
Yeah he propably cheated on her and now does that **** . What an asshole
#51 to #25
-
krobeles ONLINE (12/14/2015) [-] No, you've got it more or less down. I think the only time in which it isn't like this, is if the husband has an enormously lower income than the wife.
The rationale is what really annoys though. The rationale is, that since the wife had grown acostumed to a certain quality of living, taking that high standard away from her, isn't permitted, and as such, the husband has to continue paying her enough that she could theoretically maintain the same quality of life as she did when she were living with the husband.
I dont know if the alimony payments scale with the income of the husband, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me...
The rationale is what really annoys though. The rationale is, that since the wife had grown acostumed to a certain quality of living, taking that high standard away from her, isn't permitted, and as such, the husband has to continue paying her enough that she could theoretically maintain the same quality of life as she did when she were living with the husband.
I dont know if the alimony payments scale with the income of the husband, but it honestly wouldn't surprise me...
#78
-
Churd (12/14/2015) [-] **Churd used "*roll picture*"**
**Churd rolled image**alimony is the reason i will never get married. i have an ex girlfriend, and i would rather turn myself over to isis, than have to give her my money.
**Churd rolled image**alimony is the reason i will never get married. i have an ex girlfriend, and i would rather turn myself over to isis, than have to give her my money.
#84 to #79
-
mondominiman (12/14/2015) [-] I want to get fit enough to do **** like this then I remember the outtakes and I change my mind
