Do you often feel that the highly specific situation you find yourself in should be the basis for laws applied without cause to the rest of society?

It’s highly specific for married couples to work together and make choices that benefit the household as a whole, but puts one at a financial disadvantage if they separate? That’s kind of a sad outlook on life and marriage. Yes, I am on my second marriage. I know the realities of divorce.

Is it also highly unusual for one spouse to stay at home or take a lower paying job because it is beneficial to the family as a whole? (No, people go into education all of the time for just that reason).

Is it very specific for one spouse to take a job just for the benefits while the other is able to make more by being self employed or starting a business?

If a couple is not working together for the benefit of the family unit as a whole, something is wrong.

Beats me.

> If I “wrote a contract”, should we have changed the contract every time that we made a decision for both of our benefit long term?

That should be up to you. I'm not trying to tell you what you have to do. That's the point.

> puts one at a financial disadvantage if they separate

Why is this a given? Your wife is still entitled to half of your accumulated wealth during the marriage. That's not what alimony is. Alimony is the continued support you are forced to provide.

The examples you state are not a given and should not be the default assumption of a marriage contract.

> If a couple is not working together for the benefit of the family unit as a whole, something is wrong.

That's your opinion and should not be assumed by the state.

Why is half the wealth accumulated during a marriage not restitution enough?

Besides that “accumulated” assets are just that, “accumulated” over a span as your income increases.

Would you be okay if you were 50/50 in a startup, worked hard early on and then when the other partner saw that the result of the early work was about to make a massive amount of money but hadn’t yet, they pushed you out, split the early assets and were able to enjoy the growth without you? Wouldn’t you feel entitled to the income stream?

The stereotypical example is the wife working, while the husband goes to medical school and when they graduate, they leave the wife. At that point, they haven’t accumulated much in assets.

Lets say you were 50/50 in a startup. You worked your youth away, sometimes 80 hour weeks. The other partner hung around and then did nothing but generate empty platitudes and empty promises for the next few years. Would you be ok if that partner sold their half of the company you built and then demanded indefinite royalties from you?

The stereotypical example is just that. It is not true in many modern cases. It should not be the legal default. In my case, my partner started working and had a career when we met. I developed my skills while they sat idle. My income grew. They stopped working and made endless promises of building home based businesses that ate thousands of dollars and never went anywhere. To avoid having to follow through, they eventually got a minimum wage job again. I was at fault for not leaving sooner, but I believed in their talent and wanted to help them succeed. There was no 'family' for them to care for. I did my share of the chores and cooking, while spending my free time renovating the family home. For all my patience and work, I am now punished severely by the state.

So you think that your example is so representative of the majority of marriages that your view should be forced on every young couple in America. Ok fine. So when the marriage ends, how long do you think that support should continue for? Should the state be able to force the high-income earner to work against their will as is the case now? Should the behavior of the low-earner during the marriage be a factor at all, as it currently is not?

If that was the initial legal agreement? Yes. You went in knowing the terms of the agreement and you took the risk.

I was at fault for not leaving sooner, but I believed in their talent and wanted to help them succeed.

I made the same mistake, I was an idealistic 28 year old, tired of the dating game and she wasn’t the right person but came along at the right time. She didn’t do anything to help me too much. I filed for divorce four years later, I knew the longer we stayed married, the more risks I had of long term consequences - taking more of my net worth, child support (we didn’t have kids), etc.

My previous post was about my second marriage.

Ok fine. So when the marriage ends, how long do you think that support should continue for?

You act as if the law is one size fits all. It’s a “judgement” call. That’s why we have judges, lawyers, etc.

Of course no one is going to be married for a year and have to pay alimony for the rest of their life. I didn’t pay any alimony. Then again we were only married for four years and she couldn’t realistically argue that she helped me succeed.

But in general, pay alimony long enough for them to conceivably get on their feet. Four or five years maybe. But the longer you are married, the more it is going to cost you.

I certainly didn't. In talking with people, I find most people do not as well.

> That’s why we have judges, lawyers, etc.

Yes. The lawyer I spoke to said typical court costs are $10k per day. Family court judges rotate in from other branches and often do not know the law(statutory or case law). Vocational evaluation is $2,500+.

> pay alimony long enough for them to conceivably get on their feet.

So why not codify this in law? Why not force disclosure when obtaining a marriage license?