Korean Job Discussion Forums

[mises]

[khyber]

[mzeno]

Yes, men get slammed, but they get back up and move on. And apparently, the burden of alimony/child support/asset loss is less than the burden of maintaining a full-time wife/kids/pets/nannies, etc., despite popular opinion.

[mises]

[Big_Bird]

[Big_Bird]

[blaseblasphemener]

[RJjr]

I managed truck drivers from 1998-2006 and was involved in doing the payroll of my fleets from 2000-2004. Seeing how divorced drivers' paychecks got demolished every week is one of the biggest reasons among many that I never want to get married. The single drivers were usually living like kings. The divorced ones were basically phucked.

In 2004, when I switched companies, some of the fleet managers were talking about a driver who had just recently quit. They said he had been driving over 4,000 miles every week (impossible to do legally) and ending up with a paltry $60 or so after alimony, child support, and taxes were taken out. 4,000 miles at $0.38 per mile is $1,520 gross.

I had a Korean girlfriend in Nashville in 2003, and she had recently divorced. She said her husband had a job making over $80,000 and that she was getting something like $38,000 per year for three years in alimony. They had a six year old and a four year old daughter, so 32% if his income was given to her in the form of child support until their kids turn 18. Who got the house? She did. He was living in an apartment. He called her cell phone one day when she was at my apartment and asked her if she could loan him $200, even though he was making over $80,000 and she was unemployed! And she loaned it to him. It sounded like he was struggling to make ends meet, while she was living it up. He was even paying for her car and gas to drive to my pimp pad.

[mises]

Not all men:

http://www.thestar.com/living/article/577605

[Big_Bird]

It would be interesting to see the differences between the British and the North American systems. It sounds as though things are done differently.

[OneWayTraffic]

Both the above example, and the one given in the OP's linked article seem pretty atypical to me. Outliers do not make a good case for law. In the original article it gives an example of a man who hired a good legal team to protect assets and hide income, giving a huge disparity in lifestyles after divorce. In the above article on the other hand it shows a man driven to bankruptcy. I don't think this is the majority, though it may be a significant minority.
Neither example has anything of the other partner giving their side, while the judge making the decisions was probably accquainted with all the facts.

The problem with US law as I see it is that it tries to have both partners to "live in the manner to which they have become accustomed." With the higher costs of supporting two households, legal fees and all the other things going on in a divorce, this is trying to legistate an impossibility.

I think alimony should be phased out over the next twenty or thirty years, once all the baby boomers are gone. A woman in this day and age should know that if she becomes financially dependent on her husband, that this decision will have consequences in the case of a divorce. There may be a few exceptions, but divorce should be just that. You shouldn't get the milk without the cow so to say.

Child support is a different matter of course but obviously should be linked to parental rights.

[RJjr]

It's especially bad when it's a green card digger financially raping a US soldier, as in the case of the ex-girlfriend I mentioned above. I had another ex-girlfriend from Turkey that was divorced from a serviceman as well, but I don't know how much of her divorced lifestyle was financed by alimony and child support and how much of it was from her job.

In any case, our soldiers deserve immunity from alimony. In addition to having to spend so much time away from their wives which increases the chance of divorce, they're expected to spend so much time stationed overseas which increases the odds of marrying an incompatible spouse or gold digger. Combat veterans should especially be given immunity, considering the time away from home and post-traumatic stress when they get back.

[OneWayTraffic]

I like the NZ system pretty well. There isn't any alimony at all. Marriage assets are generally divided 50/50, with exceptions for inheritances such as the family farm. If the spouses have widely disparate situations there may also be a divergence from the 50/50.

The system for child support is handled by the IRD. There's a calculator in the site to calculate liability.

http://www.ird.govt.nz/calculators/keyword/childsupport/

For someone in my likely situation, should I get divorced:

HS teacher income roughly 65,000
living alone allowance 13,964
no dependants at home and 2 children outside the home gives a tax of 24% of all income after that

$235.55 per week.

About the same as what I'd be spending on my kids every week anyways. (If you exclude the cost of a house.)

Having dependants at home or living with a partner decreases payments, more children increases them.

This is independent of marriage and the exact same system is used should you knock up a one night stand.

What I don't like: There's no guarantee for a paternity test. If you were living with a gf and she gets pregnant, the onus is on you to prove that you're not the father (should you belive that to be the case.) That's understandable, but a paternity test can only be done with the approval of the custodial parent, an obvious loophole in some cases. If some random stranger slaps a paternity on you, then she'd need to prove it, but being a live in partner is considered to be sufficient proof.

[michaelambling]

[riverboy]

This just makes me sick. I can't believe that there is a defence to this.

I think they should repeal the no fault divorce clause.

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2009/01/011109_6.html

http://www.cbc.ca/sunday/2009/01/011109_6.html