Is getting married worth it anymore?

[Mega Ultra Chicken]

?

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Publicado originalmente por Ganger:

In the western world it does seem the odds are against the man when a marriage falls apart. Please anyone, please tell me, why does a man still have to pay his divorced wife money even years down the line ?

in my nation changes have been made but it's not perfect yet.

my brothers wife ran of with another man.. he still is paying her.
despite SHE the cheating one..

ok here is how it works.


1 partner alimentation.

- we have welfare of anout 1000 euro a month in my nation.
- if you live with another person on 1 adres than only 1 can recieve welfare even if not married.
-if the person with whoem you living together has an income, also no or less wellfare.

from this derrives :

-if you ever were married you sre forever accountable for your former spouses welfare.

so if she or he works and earn money or lives with a new partner earning money they aint getting welfare and you pay nothing.

but if she or he does get welfare she gets the normal 1000 a month but you will be billed a sizable chunk of your income (bout 35% of everything you earn above welfare)
-this money does NOT go to the partner.. it goes to the state.

so you could loose 5000 a month to the state just so the ex can get 1000 a month welfare and you cannot kick exes sorry ass to work to stop that.

partner alimentation only stops when ex reaches pension age (67 currently)

****
while man can recieve this just as woman can.. woman more often cheat and woman more often stay in welfare when single.. so man more often end up paying
****

2 child support
-judge looks to where the child under 18 spends most days sleeping.
**if roughly equal (3d vs 4d) at both parents than no child support needed.
**if child is 5 days or more at 1 parent for every 2 at the other parent than child support is due.
-the child support is based on the difference in income.. if the one who takes care more for the childearns more than no child support of less.. than an amount is determined based on income gap.

**injustice here is that many mothers sue to keep custody and judges tend to pick mothers over fathers.
sueing is also free on low income but costly with higher income.. so many woman that loose their custody case just keep suing over and over running their ex into debt.
**second injustice even if the man takes custody.. since man usually earn more they still get no child support.
-also to little checking if mothers steal from that child support.. they are not allowed to spend in on themselves.

but biggest injustice happens when there is NO mariage
-a unmarried woman who give birth can just enter any mans name as the father.
that man is than due for child support etc (but has also visiting right)
-the man must prove with dna evidence if he is falsly framed.
woman has also right to do this later.. demand any man partucipate in dna test or be presumed father.
***
man on the other hand can be excluded from their own child if not married when child was born.
man cannot demand dna test of woman..
if not married a woman can block you from ever seeing your children again.

another crooked one is : abuse :
woman are known to cheat more often and lie easier but their false accusations at the end of marriages are way to often believed.
a man thats abused or tries to prove their ex wife abused the kids however is rarely ever believed..

[Lora Grim]

Publicado originalmente por Mr_Blank:

Alinity is that you

Yes. Giv muni, pls.

[Grumb]

To me, it’s either getting a few tax/legal benefits or risking divorce/ an unhappy marriage for the rest of your life. And those tax benefits will not offset the cost of divorce. I’d much rather just be in a committed relationship with someone.

[Rio]

marriage is suppose to be about pooling your resources together to raise the best children you can. But now its about extracting wealth, both for 1 party and for the courts.

[Chaosolous]

The question implies it was ever worth it.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Publicado originalmente por ⛧:

marriage is suppose to be about pooling your resources together to raise the best children you can. But now its about extracting wealth, both for 1 party and for the courts.

there should be rules like :
**no promotion in work unless married
**no pension unless having kids 1 kid is 25% of pension 2 kid is 50% of pension 3 kid is full pension..
**parents of 3 kids get free education for the rest it is very expensive..

a child cost 100k until 18.
selfish people not get kids leeching of their society.
there should be tax incentives so that ot becomes very very costly not to have at least 3 kids.

[metamec]

As a hardworking billionaire philanthropist gamer, blessed with handsome good looks, a finely chiselled athletic physique, three mansions, and a personal space station, I also find it absolutely traumatising that there are so many beautiful women out there looking to trap me into a loveless marriage in order to get their hands on all of my money.

[Grumb]

Publicado originalmente por De Hollandse Ezel:

Publicado originalmente por ⛧:

marriage is suppose to be about pooling your resources together to raise the best children you can. But now its about extracting wealth, both for 1 party and for the courts.

there should be rules like :
**no promotion in work unless married
**no pension unless having kids 1 kid is 25% of pension 2 kid is 50% of pension 3 kid is full pension..
**parents of 3 kids get free education for the rest it is very expensive..

a child cost 100k until 18.
selfish people not get kids leeching of their society.
there should be tax incentives so that ot becomes very very costly not to have at least 3 kids.

That’s absolutely ridiculous. No promotions unless married? We have laws to prevent that kind of discrimination

[Not Big Surprise]

comparatively it's better today now that you have the option to end it if things go wrong

[MinionJoe]

Lower insurance rates, medical rights, property rights...

Plenty of legal and financial reasons to get married.

[De Hollandse Ezel]

Publicado originalmente por Grumb:

Publicado originalmente por De Hollandse Ezel:

there should be rules like :
**no promotion in work unless married
**no pension unless having kids 1 kid is 25% of pension 2 kid is 50% of pension 3 kid is full pension..
**parents of 3 kids get free education for the rest it is very expensive..

a child cost 100k until 18.
selfish people not get kids leeching of their society.
there should be tax incentives so that ot becomes very very costly not to have at least 3 kids.

That’s absolutely ridiculous. No promotions unless married? We have laws to prevent that kind of discrimination

it was the norm around 1950.
-woman would not be sold or rented a house when single (stay at parents till married)
-man would not be able to buy a house or rent a house either.. they could rent a small dorm room and be stuck there unless married.

-man would be passed for promotions unless married.
-woman would only be given entry lvl jobs ans be fired when married.

those things were good it benefitted society.

if people today marry not often enough and get to few children we need laws that nudge people back to that.

[Rhila]

of course, the best thing ever.

[TWPanda77]

Yes, I think it is important.

[Grumb]

Publicado originalmente por De Hollandse Ezel:

Publicado originalmente por Grumb:

That’s absolutely ridiculous. No promotions unless married? We have laws to prevent that kind of discrimination

it was the norm around 1950.
-woman would not be sold or rented a house when single (stay at parents till married)
-man would not be able to buy a house or rent a house either.. they could rent a small dorm room and be stuck there unless married.

-man would be passed for promotions unless married.
-woman would only be given entry lvl jobs ans be fired when married.

those things were good it benefitted society.

if people today marry not often enough and get to few children we need laws that nudge people back to that.

I have no idea where you’re getting that from. Maybe it’s a difference between country laws. Nothing should supersede a person’s freedom of choice. What you’ve stated here is essentially an ethical nightmare. A woman should have to marry to move out of her parent’s house? What if she doesn’t love the man? Obligation is the last thing a marriage should be built on. In what world does a child’s very existence relying on his father’s pension make sense? Your child would literally be born just so you get more money when you retire. Think of how many unwanted children would be born in this case. They’d be neglected their entire life. Marriages should be built on love and children should be born because their parents’ wanted to raise a child.

[mai72]

NO.

video games are all you need.