As was foretold, we've added advertisements to the forums! If you have questions, or if you encounter any bugs, please visit this thread: https://forums.penny-arcade.com/discussion/240191/forum-advertisement-faq-and-reports-thread/

Expensive purses, etc.

11012141516

Posts

  • NucshNucsh Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Bongi is no woman at all

    Nucsh on
    [SIGPIC]GIANT ENEMY BEAR[/SIGPIC]
  • SpongeCakeSpongeCake Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Suffragette moar like suffragetbackinthekitchen mirite

    SpongeCake on
  • JansonJanson Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    Janson wrote: »
    I've never felt a boyfriend to be a 'major life decision'. I'm not saying that lists are wrong, just that I've never really had a criteria. I guess it's more about the person as a whole.

    I am talking about a wife, not a girlfriend.

    Still. I tend not to go into relationships without considering long-term prospects, at least, not these days :)

    Janson on
  • StratoStrato Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    tx Janson

    Strato on
  • bongibongi regular
    edited February 2007
    we totally got a new firebox installed today

    bongi on
  • CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    potatoe wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    potatoe wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    potatoe wrote: »
    dammit cal we don't need that shit in here

    we are looking for the ultimate solution

    I'll give you one hint, it involves little yellow stars.

    are we going to all go play mario 64?

    Then we'll all take a nice, warm, shower.

    will it be golden?

    Jesus, a gold star with golden showers.

    That's sparta, man.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • SpongeCakeSpongeCake Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    bongi wrote: »
    we totally got a new firebox installed today
    What possible use would a box full of fire be to anyone?

    What were you thinking bongi?

    SpongeCake on
  • JenniferJennifer Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    For some reason it would not put the picture in my last post. Here is the purse.

    shim.gif

    Jennifer on
  • CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    Strato wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    lostwords wrote: »
    Defender, do you have like a list of specific requirements for a woman to be considered Mrs. Defender material, or is it more general ideas? Either way, anything on there out of the ordinary you want to share with the class?

    (not meant to be mocking, just curious)

    I mean...well everybody has some pretty similar ideas, I think.

    Like "I have to think she's a hot babe" is usually on the list in one way or another. At the very least "I have to be not-repulsed by her" or "I have to want to have sex with her" or something. So I have that.

    I want her to have a similar commitment to health, both mental and physical, to what I have. I do not want someone who is lazy in either way, because I think that mental laziness leads to dullness and is bad for raising kids, and physical laziness leads to health problems and is just plain unattractive.

    Having some common tastes or interests is important. This could mean that she wants to explore new foods, that she loves language (which I've neglected lately, actually), that she enjoys art in the "let's analyze and discuss this" sense, that she is devoted to any of the various forms of the martial arts, that she likes (core) video games, and/or that she's interested in some aspect of what I'll call "computer stuff." To put it into broad strokes, those are my interests. The last few there are pretty male-dominated, but the first few are not. Big bonus points for sharing multiple interests with me.

    Ethically sound. This is non-negotiable, she has to be above reproach in the ethical sense. I myself am, and this doesn't mean I'm a "perfect person" or anything, but I simply don't do things that I believe are wrong. That's a really, really big deal to me. If you will do what you believe to be wrong in any but the most extreme circumstances, how can I trust you?

    Faith, we'll call it, is optional, as long as it doesn't interfere with other things or involve crazy bullshit like "gods hates fags" or "everyone who believes in god is a fucking idiot."

    +10 points if she's Irish.

    +10 points is she's a redhead.

    She must not be crazy. Red hair, by the way, does not buy you extra allowance on the crazy scale; I've already had that combination and it really, really stops mattering that your hair is red.

    This is a long list, and I'm cutting it here just because I don't want to get into too much minutia. To be fair, though, this is a major life decision, and the list SHOULD be long and detailed.

    I'm curious to hear whether females' lists are at all similar to this, though. I'm concerned this is maybe where the general disparity between the sexes lies.

    All I hear are things like "I want him to provide for me, and be romantic by always doing things for me, and I don't care if he's ethically sound as long as he's hot and manly, because I can change him." Another generalization, I'm sure. Maybe I've hung out with too many dumb college chicks.


    Jesus christ, my girlfriend is the total opposite of that.

    "Most women" don't think that way. That is what men project onto women, historically speaking.

    Your girlfriend is non-standard, Cal, as are you.

    Wanting a man to be a provider and wanting him to be romantic is not uncommon in my experience. Also, "I can change him" is supposedly a very common idea, almost as common as "she will never change."

    Standard people are stupid.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    potatoe wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    The older I get, the more I despise the thought of a wife that I would have to "provide" for. Dependency is such a turnoff.

    i wouldn't mind having a wife that stayed at home with the kids, given i had a job that could support that.
    but i am in no means against her bringing home a paycheck as well

    I don't know, man. I don't even think I want kids anymore. Is there really not enough people in this fucking world?

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • bongibongi regular
    edited February 2007
    SpongeCake wrote: »
    bongi wrote: »
    we totally got a new firebox installed today
    What possible use would a box full of fire be to anyone?

    What were you thinking bongi?
    it keeps me warm

    bongi on
  • NucshNucsh Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Is a firebox a radiator

    Is that the queen's way of saying heater

    Nucsh on
    [SIGPIC]GIANT ENEMY BEAR[/SIGPIC]
  • tsplittertsplitter Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    If i had kids, I would be too tempted to sell them

    tsplitter on
    FqmsaJ6.png
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Janson wrote: »
    Strato wrote: »
    All I hear are things like "I want him to provide for me, and be romantic by always doing things for me, and I don't care if he's ethically sound as long as he's hot and manly, because I can change him." Another generalization, I'm sure. Maybe I've hung out with too many dumb college chicks.

    You'd like a list?

    Okay, I'll make one :D

    1. Is honest/trustworthy. I really can't bear people who lie, even if it's only on small silly occasions. My ex once lied about his name (it's a short, common name and he said it was short for a longer name to make it seem more exotic) - that put me off him for months! I suppose this ties in with Defender's 'ethics' requirement.

    2. Shares enough similar interests with me. I'm pretty broad-minded and I enjoy many different TV shows, I like the theatre, I like playing games, I like going to the cinema, I like opera, I like musicals, I like dance, I like anime, I love reading, I do a little drawing, I'd like to start a martial art or meditation, I can enjoy gardening, etc., so unless the guy is really sporty (I will never enjoy a football game) or drinks a lot (the pub culture isn't really for me - I love the odd pint but it's an expensive hobby) it's hard not to find at least some common ground.

    3. Would like children at some point. This may seem silly, but I'd hate to invest heavily in a relationship and get close to the wedding aisle only to discover that our life-long goals weren't compatible.

    4. Shows a degree of common sense.

    I don't really have any physical traits; I do like dark-haired men, but I've dated a red-head and a blond; I like dark eyes and am not fond of blue, but all the men I've dated have been blue eyed or green eyed, I like tall men but my boyfriend is shorter than me, etc.

    Seriously, your identical cousin who lives in America: Where is she?

    I am sorry you do not like my beautiful blue eyes, perhaps your cousin will not mind.

    Defender on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    SpongeCake wrote: »
    If any ladies are Internet-Stalking me and interested in becoming Mrs. Cake, I want to be a kept man. I'll stay at home, cook and clean for you, work hard at being pretty and if you want to beat me with your briefcase when you come home from a busy day at work because I just won't shut up that's fine.

    How about you be Mrs. Butters instead.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • SpongeCakeSpongeCake Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Butters wrote: »
    How about you be Mrs. Butters instead.
    Do you have a briefcase?

    SpongeCake on
  • bongibongi regular
    edited February 2007
    apparently i mean wood stove

    bongi on
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    tsplitter wrote: »
    If i had kids, I would be too tempted to sell them

    I'm in the market.

    (Are they sexy kids?)

    Defender on
  • CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I think the issue (with the alimony) is that it is useful in some regards and isn't in others.

    Natasha's mother has spent the last 16 or so years home-schooling her children and raising them. Sure, she had side jobs and things (which were geared towards raising the children and educating them), but she isn't exactly "prime material" for a nice, high paying job that would be required to live in the area she's living in.

    Mind, her parents aren't going to get divorced (to my knowledge, at the very least), but if they did she would be 100% completely screwed. As such, I don't see a problem with her husband being forced to help her establish herself, since she pretty much had a non-paying job for so long.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Callius wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    Strato wrote: »
    I'm curious to hear whether females' lists are at all similar to this, though. I'm concerned this is maybe where the general disparity between the sexes lies.

    All I hear are things like "I want him to provide for me, and be romantic by always doing things for me, and I don't care if he's ethically sound as long as he's hot and manly, because I can change him." Another generalization, I'm sure. Maybe I've hung out with too many dumb college chicks.


    Jesus christ, my girlfriend is the total opposite of that.

    "Most women" don't think that way. That is what men project onto women, historically speaking.

    Your girlfriend is non-standard, Cal, as are you.

    Wanting a man to be a provider and wanting him to be romantic is not uncommon in my experience. Also, "I can change him" is supposedly a very common idea, almost as common as "she will never change."

    Standard people are stupid.

    Pointless derision aside, you're talking about "most women," so...you have sort of restricted the discussion to the standard.


    EDIT: Pruning

    Defender on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    SpongeCake wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    How about you be Mrs. Butters instead.
    Do you have a briefcase?

    Oh yeah. A big black one.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • SpongeCakeSpongeCake Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Awwwww yeeeeeah

    SpongeCake on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Callius wrote: »
    I think the issue (with the alimony) is that it is useful in some regards and isn't in others.

    Natasha's mother has spent the last 16 or so years home-schooling her children and raising them. Sure, she had side jobs and things (which were geared towards raising the children and educating them), but she isn't exactly "prime material" for a nice, high paying job that would be required to live in the area she's living in.

    Mind, her parents aren't going to get divorced (to my knowledge, at the very least), but if they did she would be 100% completely screwed. As such, I don't see a problem with her husband being forced to help her establish herself, since she pretty much had a non-paying job for so long.

    Well I think Defender's questioning whether 50% would really be necessary in a case like this. If the the guy makes 100 grand a year, should he really have to surrender 50 grand to keep his ex-wife fed, clothed, and sheltered?

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    I just think it's very easy to abuse that system, especially since her capacity for earning "if she hadn't stayed home and raised kids" is, as the "if" indicates, largely hypothetical and easy to make up. Also, what he makes has no bearing on what she could've made.

    Defender on
  • lostwordslostwords Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Is there alimony thats like a one lump payment thing you can get right after the divorce trial? Kinda like the lottery, where you can get either monthly payments or one big pay off. I could see that working, though the dude would probably end up in debt a lot of the times in that situation.

    lostwords on
    rat.jpg tumbler? steam/ps3 thingie: lostwords Amazon Wishlist!
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    lostwords wrote: »
    Is there alimony thats like a one lump payment thing you can get right after the divorce trial? Kinda like the lottery, where you can get either monthly payments or one big pay off. I could see that working, though the dude would probably end up in debt a lot of the times in that situation.

    I have a friend who's paying $1600 a month in alimony until his kids, who are 9 and 13, are 18. Let's just look at how much money that is until the older kid hits 18.

    $1600 * 5 * 12

    $96,000

    Guess what? My friend does not have $96,000 just lying around.

    EDIT: Also, $96,000 up front is WAY more valuable than $96,000 over five years. Way more valuable. So that's not even fair. We'd have to come up with some "interest" amount and reverse the calculation, and it's just basically not something that I think a court should do.

    Defender on
  • CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Butters wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    I think the issue (with the alimony) is that it is useful in some regards and isn't in others.

    Natasha's mother has spent the last 16 or so years home-schooling her children and raising them. Sure, she had side jobs and things (which were geared towards raising the children and educating them), but she isn't exactly "prime material" for a nice, high paying job that would be required to live in the area she's living in.

    Mind, her parents aren't going to get divorced (to my knowledge, at the very least), but if they did she would be 100% completely screwed. As such, I don't see a problem with her husband being forced to help her establish herself, since she pretty much had a non-paying job for so long.

    Well I think Defender's questioning whether 50% would really be necessary in a case like this. If the the guy makes 100 grand a year, should he really have to surrender 50 grand to keep his ex-wife fed, clothed, and sheltered?


    16 years worth of work, plus restricting her resume?

    That's quite a bit of cash she "lost" due to raising the children.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    I just think it's very easy to abuse that system, especially since her capacity for earning "if she hadn't stayed home and raised kids" is, as the "if" indicates, largely hypothetical and easy to make up. Also, what he makes has no bearing on what she could've made.

    True, but what other metric can you use in that situation? You know?

    To leave her completely high and dry is really a dick move, regardless of how the shit hits the fan (unless she's at fault, or he is while she's the bread winner).

    It's entirely situational, you know?

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Callius wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    I think the issue (with the alimony) is that it is useful in some regards and isn't in others.

    Natasha's mother has spent the last 16 or so years home-schooling her children and raising them. Sure, she had side jobs and things (which were geared towards raising the children and educating them), but she isn't exactly "prime material" for a nice, high paying job that would be required to live in the area she's living in.

    Mind, her parents aren't going to get divorced (to my knowledge, at the very least), but if they did she would be 100% completely screwed. As such, I don't see a problem with her husband being forced to help her establish herself, since she pretty much had a non-paying job for so long.

    Well I think Defender's questioning whether 50% would really be necessary in a case like this. If the the guy makes 100 grand a year, should he really have to surrender 50 grand to keep his ex-wife fed, clothed, and sheltered?


    16 years worth of work, plus restricting her resume?

    That's quite a bit of cash she "lost" due to raising the children.

    Yeah, OK, two things though:

    1) How much money did she really lose? Remember that during those 16 years, he paid all of her bills, so don't forget to discount that amount.

    2) How much money could she have made if she had worked? If he has a great education and good connections and she has nothing of the sort, then her earning potential was probably way lower than his. Calculating it as a percentage of his salary is bullshit because there is no legitimate relationship between what he is earning and what should could have earned.

    Defender on
  • ButtersButters A glass of some milks Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Callius wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    I think the issue (with the alimony) is that it is useful in some regards and isn't in others.

    Natasha's mother has spent the last 16 or so years home-schooling her children and raising them. Sure, she had side jobs and things (which were geared towards raising the children and educating them), but she isn't exactly "prime material" for a nice, high paying job that would be required to live in the area she's living in.

    Mind, her parents aren't going to get divorced (to my knowledge, at the very least), but if they did she would be 100% completely screwed. As such, I don't see a problem with her husband being forced to help her establish herself, since she pretty much had a non-paying job for so long.

    Well I think Defender's questioning whether 50% would really be necessary in a case like this. If the the guy makes 100 grand a year, should he really have to surrender 50 grand to keep his ex-wife fed, clothed, and sheltered?


    16 years worth of work, plus restricting her resume?

    That's quite a bit of cash she "lost" due to raising the children.

    Money required to pay for raising the children would be covered by child support. Now why does the guy have to pay for his ex-wife to be supported? She has a duty to provide for herself as well as her children.

    Butters on
    PSN: idontworkhere582 | CFN: idontworkhere | Steam: lordbutters | Amazon Wishlist
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Callius wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    I just think it's very easy to abuse that system, especially since her capacity for earning "if she hadn't stayed home and raised kids" is, as the "if" indicates, largely hypothetical and easy to make up. Also, what he makes has no bearing on what she could've made.

    True, but what other metric can you use in that situation? You know?

    To leave her completely high and dry is really a dick move, regardless of how the shit hits the fan (unless she's at fault, or he is while she's the bread winner).

    It's entirely situational, you know?

    Yeah, it is entirely situational. One solution might be to base it off of what it actually costs to have someone take care of your kid, since that was, effectively, her "job" up to that point.

    Defender on
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Butters wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    I think the issue (with the alimony) is that it is useful in some regards and isn't in others.

    Natasha's mother has spent the last 16 or so years home-schooling her children and raising them. Sure, she had side jobs and things (which were geared towards raising the children and educating them), but she isn't exactly "prime material" for a nice, high paying job that would be required to live in the area she's living in.

    Mind, her parents aren't going to get divorced (to my knowledge, at the very least), but if they did she would be 100% completely screwed. As such, I don't see a problem with her husband being forced to help her establish herself, since she pretty much had a non-paying job for so long.

    Well I think Defender's questioning whether 50% would really be necessary in a case like this. If the the guy makes 100 grand a year, should he really have to surrender 50 grand to keep his ex-wife fed, clothed, and sheltered?


    16 years worth of work, plus restricting her resume?

    That's quite a bit of cash she "lost" due to raising the children.

    Money required to pay for raising the children would be covered by child support. Now why does the guy have to pay for his ex-wife to be supported? She has a duty to provide for herself as well as her children.

    You know, this is an interesting point.

    Yeah, she now has to raise kids as a single mom during her custody of them. But you know, so does he! He's still paying her bills; is she providing substitute day care to come to his house and take care of the kids and cook him dinner? (Also have hot, hot sex with him?)

    Defender on
  • CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    I think the issue (with the alimony) is that it is useful in some regards and isn't in others.

    Natasha's mother has spent the last 16 or so years home-schooling her children and raising them. Sure, she had side jobs and things (which were geared towards raising the children and educating them), but she isn't exactly "prime material" for a nice, high paying job that would be required to live in the area she's living in.

    Mind, her parents aren't going to get divorced (to my knowledge, at the very least), but if they did she would be 100% completely screwed. As such, I don't see a problem with her husband being forced to help her establish herself, since she pretty much had a non-paying job for so long.

    Well I think Defender's questioning whether 50% would really be necessary in a case like this. If the the guy makes 100 grand a year, should he really have to surrender 50 grand to keep his ex-wife fed, clothed, and sheltered?


    16 years worth of work, plus restricting her resume?

    That's quite a bit of cash she "lost" due to raising the children.

    Yeah, OK, two things though:

    1) How much money did she really lose? Remember that during those 16 years, he paid all of her bills, so don't forget to discount that amount.

    2) How much money could she have made if she had worked? If he has a great education and good connections and she has nothing of the sort, then her earning potential was probably way lower than his. Calculating it as a percentage of his salary is bullshit because there is no legitimate relationship between what he is earning and what should could have earned.


    She has her masters in Biology, so the amount of money lost is quite substantial.

    As for using his salary as the variable in the calculation, I agree is a bit of bullshit, but how else would you calculate that sort of thing? You can make it extremely complex (as you've shown), or you can say "well, that's a buncha' bullshit... let's just use his salary as a metric, since she has probably contributed to his ability to get that salary."

    It's really a grey area. There are times when alimony is justified and necessary, there are times when it's totally bitching the system and a dick move.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • SheriSheri Resident Fluffer My Living RoomRegistered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Look, if you think that all women are giggly obnoxious bitches who spend $1000 on a purse and want a man to provide for them for the rest of their lives, you've been hanging out with the wrong women.

    There are just as many women who are nothing like that and if you're too dumb to realize it maybe you're too dumb to find them.

    Sheri on
  • SkankPlayaSkankPlaya Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    lostwords wrote: »
    Is there alimony thats like a one lump payment thing you can get right after the divorce trial? Kinda like the lottery, where you can get either monthly payments or one big pay off. I could see that working, though the dude would probably end up in debt a lot of the times in that situation.

    I have a friend who's paying $1600 a month in alimony until his kids, who are 9 and 13, are 18. Let's just look at how much money that is until the older kid hits 18.

    $1600 * 5 * 12

    $96,000

    Guess what? My friend does not have $96,000 just lying around.

    EDIT: Also, $96,000 up front is WAY more valuable than $96,000 over five years. Way more valuable. So that's not even fair. We'd have to come up with some "interest" amount and reverse the calculation, and it's just basically not something that I think a court should do.


    That doesn't look like alimony. I think it's child support, at least, if it is based on when the kids turn 18.

    SkankPlaya on
  • potatoepotatoe Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Butters wrote: »
    potatoe wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    The older I get, the more I despise the thought of a wife that I would have to "provide" for. Dependency is such a turnoff.

    i wouldn't mind having a wife that stayed at home with the kids, given i had a job that could support that.
    but i am in no means against her bringing home a paycheck as well

    I don't know, man. I don't even think I want kids anymore. Is there really not enough people in this fucking world?

    see, i love kids, and i'm great with them

    that was one of those really nice compliments that my ex gave me once after spending an entire day hanging out with her and her younger sister, that i would make a great father

    but maybe i'm wierd for liking to hear that kind of thing

    potatoe on
  • CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Butters wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    Butters wrote: »
    Callius wrote: »
    I think the issue (with the alimony) is that it is useful in some regards and isn't in others.

    Natasha's mother has spent the last 16 or so years home-schooling her children and raising them. Sure, she had side jobs and things (which were geared towards raising the children and educating them), but she isn't exactly "prime material" for a nice, high paying job that would be required to live in the area she's living in.

    Mind, her parents aren't going to get divorced (to my knowledge, at the very least), but if they did she would be 100% completely screwed. As such, I don't see a problem with her husband being forced to help her establish herself, since she pretty much had a non-paying job for so long.

    Well I think Defender's questioning whether 50% would really be necessary in a case like this. If the the guy makes 100 grand a year, should he really have to surrender 50 grand to keep his ex-wife fed, clothed, and sheltered?


    16 years worth of work, plus restricting her resume?

    That's quite a bit of cash she "lost" due to raising the children.

    Money required to pay for raising the children would be covered by child support. Now why does the guy have to pay for his ex-wife to be supported? She has a duty to provide for herself as well as her children.


    Bullshit, do you know how pitiful child-support usually is?

    It's a pittance, it really is in most instance.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • DefenderDefender Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    SkankPlaya wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    lostwords wrote: »
    Is there alimony thats like a one lump payment thing you can get right after the divorce trial? Kinda like the lottery, where you can get either monthly payments or one big pay off. I could see that working, though the dude would probably end up in debt a lot of the times in that situation.

    I have a friend who's paying $1600 a month in alimony until his kids, who are 9 and 13, are 18. Let's just look at how much money that is until the older kid hits 18.

    $1600 * 5 * 12

    $96,000

    Guess what? My friend does not have $96,000 just lying around.

    EDIT: Also, $96,000 up front is WAY more valuable than $96,000 over five years. Way more valuable. So that's not even fair. We'd have to come up with some "interest" amount and reverse the calculation, and it's just basically not something that I think a court should do.


    That doesn't look like alimony. I think it's child support, at least, if it is based on when the kids turn 18.

    That is separate from the child support but for some reason has a cutoff that works out to be about the same.

    I don't actually know the particulars.

    Although the child support might as well be alimony, since she spends it on herself and he is stuck with paying all the kids' bills anyway.

    Defender on
  • CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Sheri wrote: »
    Look, if you think that all women are giggly obnoxious bitches who spend $1000 on a purse and want a man to provide for them for the rest of their lives, you've been hanging out with the wrong women.

    There are just as many women who are nothing like that and if you're too dumb to realize it maybe you're too dumb to find them.

    <3

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
  • CalliusCallius Registered User regular
    edited February 2007
    Defender wrote: »
    SkankPlaya wrote: »
    Defender wrote: »
    lostwords wrote: »
    Is there alimony thats like a one lump payment thing you can get right after the divorce trial? Kinda like the lottery, where you can get either monthly payments or one big pay off. I could see that working, though the dude would probably end up in debt a lot of the times in that situation.

    I have a friend who's paying $1600 a month in alimony until his kids, who are 9 and 13, are 18. Let's just look at how much money that is until the older kid hits 18.

    $1600 * 5 * 12

    $96,000

    Guess what? My friend does not have $96,000 just lying around.

    EDIT: Also, $96,000 up front is WAY more valuable than $96,000 over five years. Way more valuable. So that's not even fair. We'd have to come up with some "interest" amount and reverse the calculation, and it's just basically not something that I think a court should do.


    That doesn't look like alimony. I think it's child support, at least, if it is based on when the kids turn 18.

    That is separate from the child support but for some reason has a cutoff that works out to be about the same.

    I don't actually know the particulars.

    Although the child support might as well be alimony, since she spends it on herself and he is stuck with paying all the kids' bills anyway.


    Again, situational. I'm sure you have absolutely no problem with child support. If the person in custody of the child spends it in ridiculous ways that's another matter.

    Callius on
    tonksigblack.png
Sign In or Register to comment.