The hellish cost of Divorce

Watch this and learn men...if this doesn't smarten you up nothing will.

caution: you may have nightmares after watching this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CYb5xSd4PRs&feature=autoplay&list=UUDoNFQZqQpd6aL32Ua4JPTQ&playnext=1

I know something about that from friend couples who have divorced.

One of them is still dealing with the settlement. Divorce was
granted and signed by both parties almost 2 years ago.

Another great one is, in the state of oregon, if you divorce and have kids you have a mandatory "how to talk to your kids about the divorce" class for a few months before you can be granted the divorce.

I'm never getting married.

Maybe someone who's better informed on Family Law can fill me in on this but how can the court demand that a guy pay a higher amount in alimony and child support than he earns? It seems like it was pretty much impossible for this guy to come up with the money being demanded.

How are child support payment amounts even calculated?

An interesting quote from a man citing Briffaults law

______________________

"Men love women, but I truly believe that women are incapable of what we men call love. “Greater love hath no man than that he lay down his life for his friends.” How many women are willing to die for their husbands, friends, country, or comrades in arms? Damn few, if any. Yet it is commonly expected of men (made compulsory under certain circumstances). How many men continue on in their marriages, supporting their family and their wife, while the wife is making their life a living hell? Far too many. How many men choose their wives over their parents and siblings? Most. Women do not behave like this. Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die. Even if the wife is making (nearly) as much money as the husband, she will not have insurance. She sees no reason to reduce her current ability to spend to take care of others after she is dead. She could care less what happens to the husband, and doesn’t want the husband to be able to spend money on some young bimbo, after she dies. The life insurance gender statistics are well known, and widely available. None of this should be a shocking revelation. When my second wife died, her mandatory insurance (free) provided by her teacher’s union covered her funeral expenses. It would have made life much easier if her insurance had paid the over $350,000 my life insurance would have paid.

When does the expectation of mutual benefit in marriage go seriously wrong in the west? It goes wrong as soon as the “I Dos” are said, or very shortly thereafter. Why is this so? Because you, the man have just entered into a contract with the state where you have promised that you will provide everything to your bride, and where the bride has promised nothing. By the way, the full weight of the law and public opinion will support her stripping you of every thing you have, including your children, and most of what you will ever make in the future, when (not if) she decides to dump you. Hence, once you enter into the contract you have nothing left to offer her. Everything you have, or will have, is already hers. Seem like a harsh statement? I thought so too, the first time I heard it, during an argument with my first wife towards the end of our marriage. She asked me the eternal female question, “What do you do for me?” (i.e. what benefit do I get from associating with you?) I responded, “I pay all your expenses. I feed, clothe, and house you. And, I am paying for your college tuition.” She told me that all the money I earned was her money and that if she let me have any of it that was pure charity on her part, so I was doing nothing for her. I thought this was unduly harsh. The divorce courts showed me that it was pretty much just a statement of fact. The wife has it all, and can make her part of the marriage contract, the portion where she is to provide you with companionship, comfort, loyalty, sex, etc., null and void at any time while keeping everything you have/had/will ever have. She has no need to associate with you further once you are married (see corollary 2). (What is the difference between regular Barbie doll and divorced Barbie doll? Divorced Barbie comes with her stuff and all of Ken’s stuff too.) This seems a totally destructive state of affairs. Recently many in the western nations have been up in arms over a law passed in, I believe, Saudi Arabia that said if a married woman refuses her husband sex, then he can refuse to feed her. All are screaming it is Islamic misogyny. Seems to me, it is an equal degree of enforcement for both sides of a contract."

Just join this forum and its my first reply.I know one thing that divorce is last option. You must take some time before any action.You must think twice trice or 100 time before planning some thing like that.

Naturally there is no provision to insure the mother spends the money on the children rather than on fancy shoes, dinners out with other dudes, or a big screen tv....noooo


what's marriage good for exactly in this day and age :crackup:

marriage as defined by the family courts upon dissolution is a fraud perpetrated against men...the fact that men are not up in arms fighting these draconian laws tooth and nail is a testimony to how puzzified and ignorant men have become regarding their own circumstances....that white knight men actually parrot the female agenda and extoll the virtues of marriage in our current day is another nail in the coffin.

bradd80 said:

The youtube video left out the details of why this happened, but a common scenario is this: dad makes a killing in his profession, earning like $150k per year. Court orders he pays child and spousal support based on this amount, and this can total 30, 40, or 50 grand per year. Then, for whatever reasons dad loses his high earning job and gets something making a lot less, perhaps 40 or 50k per year until he finds something better.

However, COURTS DO NOT GIVE A FLYING F*CK ABOUT DAD'S "SOB STORY." Remember, judges often live in an Alice in Wonderland fairytale. If they think you purposely quit your job, or should be earning more than you are, they may still make you pay support based on the higher amount. Isn't love grand?



This can get complicated, and varies from state to state. I'm a licensed attorney in the U.S. and Canada but i work mostly in Canada where the support payments are based on a chart which outlines how much you should give for child support based on your income, and usually this amount is approximately 10% of your gross income, which turns out to be approximately 25% of your after-tax income. Remember, this is for one child, and the amount gradually increases for every child you have after that. If you make more than 150k per year, then the court will order you to pay a percentage of anything over that, currently this is 0.74% for the first child, again gradually increasing for each kid you have. The chart is based on a variety of economic factors and research that has been done by the government based on what the average needs are of children.

In New York, as another example, it's a bit more complicated, and is calculated by multiplying the "combined parental income" by the appropriate "child support percentage. Income" is defined as "gross income as was or should have been reported on the most recent federal income tax return" less deductions for things like social security and New York City income taxes.

The "child support percentage" is fixed at:

a)17% of the combined parental income for one child;
b)25% of the combined parental income for two children;
c)29% of the combined parental income for three children;
d)31% of the combined parental income for four children; and
e)no less than 35% of the combined parental income for five or more children.

Where the combined parental income exceeds $80,000 per year, the court has the discretion to depart from the child support guideline percentages as to those portions of income that are in excess of $80,000.

So, let's put it in simpler terms: Let's suppose, a mother, with an income of $30,000 after social security and New York City taxes , is the custodial parent of two kids. The dad's income is $50,000 after social security and New York City taxes..

The couple’s combined annual income is $80,000. Since there are two children, the applicable guideline percentage is 25% or $20,000 per year. The father’s share of the child support payment is 5/8 of $20,000 or $12,500 per year or $1,042 per month.

Where the combined parental income exceeds $80,000 per year, the court once again has discretion to depart from the child support percentages as to those portions of income that are in excess of $80,000.

In addition to ordering the payment of child support, the Court can order the non-custodial parent to pay his share of the children's un-reimbursed health care expenses, the child care expenses when the custodial parent is working or attending school, the children’s educational expenses, as well as the costs of extra-curricular activities.

Sound complicated? It's not that bad, but you should still think long and hard before you marry any girl..

Click to expand...

Thanks for that detailed post. That's absolutely ridiculous that a father is expected to keep paying the same amount even after a huge decrease in income. I'm pretty sure most guys wouldn't want to make less money just to spite their exes.

There really ought to be some sort of provision in place to ensure that the money is in fact being spent on the children. I'll bet that it's pretty easy for the recipient to siphon a lot of that money for personal use.

just goes to show that you are CRAZY to have kids in the US these days, especially if you don't have 1/4 mill in the bank for each proposed kid, and your proposed mother of your children isn't bringing at least 100k (per kid) to the deal. Even with that much money, unless you are a whiz at investments, you will still have to work for 25 more years in order to properly raise those kids. In order to be there as you should be for the kids, better have double those amounts in the bank, guys. If you can't do this, you are among the 90% who have no biz being parents.

I remember an older engineer colleague of mine who had gotten divorced. In the late 80's, at a supervisory level engineer's salary, he had exactly $600/mo net (i.e., after taxes) to live on. :kick: He was brownbagging his lunch, and couldn't even afford a soft drink to wash it down.

Burroughs said:

Men take out large insurance policies so their wives and children will be well taken care of should they die.

Click to expand...

This reminds me of another story about a more contemporary colleague. He figured out that with all the life insurance his wife had on him, he was worth more dead and than alive to her.

:nervous:

the video shocked me, i felt really sorry for that man. he looks like a decent person, a caring father and he is in a terrible situation because of a greedy wife. f... the marriage bull****. why would anyone wants to put himself into this position? i don't think i would ever get married. i will provide her s..t and at the end if something goes bad, it will be totally my fault and the state would transfer my whole life savings to her. totally nonsense. i think love and other bull**** like it are just the consequences of low self-esteem and confidence. a man with options should not restrict himself with shackles such as a marriage contract and the financial burden of having a companionship with a woman.

bradd80 said:

The youtube video left out the details of why this happened, but a common scenario is this: dad makes a killing in his profession, earning like $150k per year. Court orders he pays child and spousal support based on this amount, and this can total 30, 40, or 50 grand per year. Then, for whatever reasons dad loses his high earning job and gets something making a lot less, perhaps 40 or 50k per year until he finds something better.

However, COURTS DO NOT GIVE A FLYING F*CK ABOUT DAD'S "SOB STORY." Remember, judges often live in an Alice in Wonderland fairytale. If they think you purposely quit your job, or should be earning more than you are, they may still make you pay support based on the higher amount. Isn't love grand?

Click to expand...

You know what? I'm not watching some youtube video, but fvck these guys in general.

If these guys would take the information READILY AVAILABLE and make wise decisions based off of this information, then we'd ALL be better off because so few men would be getting married that women would panic and run around in circles and capitulate to much needed changes to law and give up on a large portion of the feminist tripe.

But since these tools, like all those people who lost their houses a few years ago due to being stupid, rolled the dice in a game stacked against them, pulled the wool over their own eyes, and ignored all the copious information that modern marriage is a sham, they've screwed all the rest of us too.

So fvck em. Do not care. They VOLUNTEERED to be part of the fvcked up system where such things could result. They can deal with their own fallout.

Never forget this man's situation...it could be you.

No offence or trolling purpose but I would rather take her out than living a life as a slave for someone who probably even cheated on me before leaving.

I dont accept the fact that a woman just for being married to me is entitled to half of money, and Im not saying this because its not convenient to me, Im saying it because I truly believe its wrong.

While I agree about sustaining your own son as long as she proofs money are spent on him, I dont believe marriage for women should grand at any condition the same profits of a purchase of bonds.

While we can clearly see the ugliness of the ex-wife's behavior here, let's not forget that this is also an illustration of a universal law of power: that those who allow themselves to be pushed around, will. This guy is a total pushover.

He presumably had 48 hours at the end to 'work things out' with his ex. I'm guessing he tried to come to some logical conclusion with her and as a result got sent back. Had he toughened up a little, even thrown out some threats, maybe roughed her up without marks (you would too if you were in his situation), maybe things would have been different.

Maybe 6 months in county will do him some good and break him down to where he can rebuild with a tougher core.

A very important thing to NEVER forget is the power of psychology over EVERYTHING. For a high-level illustration of this, I recommend you read Robert Greene's 33 Strategies of War. Many battles among hundreds of thousands have been won without any bloodshed.

Sure, women may have the law on their side by default, but if they're scared sh!tless to pursue it or see that even if they will they will lose too much in the process, you will quickly and quietly be forgiven for any indiscretion. THIS is how you win.

“My view is that it is desirable to be both loved and feared; but it is difficult to achieve both and, if one of them has to be lacking, it is much safer to be feared than loved.”
― Niccolò Machiavelli

I'm guessing he tried to come to some logical conclusion with her and as a result got sent back. Had he toughened up a little, even thrown out some threats, maybe roughed her up without marksmaybe things would have been different.good looking loser

if you have kids in today's world, you are crazy, on the face of it, and if you hang around the same area as some crazy ex, you DESERVE what happens to you. Blow her off, man, and MOVE OUT OF THAT STATE, and change your name and act like a fugitive, no contact with the past, or pay the consequences of your stupidity.

bradd80 said:

You know guys, i would NEVER suggest hitting a woman or "taking her out" lol @ the who dares win comment to avoid paying some money. As bad as things can get, losing your freedom for the rest of your life is never a good option to just paying some money.

My best advice is to just avoid getting into this situation, and if you have decided to get married to do the best you can to protect yourself.

Don't ever make things worse for yourself. Paying mucho dineros is always a pain in the ass, but always remember to cut your losses and move on without making things worse.

Click to expand...

In this guys situation, it wound up being the same thing.

pdx1138 said:

Another great one is, in the state of oregon, if you divorce and have kids you have a mandatory "how to talk to your kids about the divorce" class for a few months before you can be granted the divorce.

Click to expand...

wow....

just like catholic church that requires you to go infront of a panel and they determine if you should stay married or not.

Men are starting to say, "Wait a minute. Why should my life be about struggle and self-sacrifice, working myself to death for people who regard me as a wallet? Why should I marry some 'blunt, outspoken' woman who will turn on me whenever the money stops coming in, who will nag me to death and take half my stuff, including any kids we have together, 10 years down the road?"

The real question is, why did otherwise sane men continue to choose that path for decades after it was outdated and shown to be harmful to them in every conceivable way?

Women in the Western World have the option of pursuing careers, becoming housewives, staying single, dating other girls, and doing whatever they like in life, and society accepts them no matter what they do. They can pick and choose from life like it was a buffet, avoiding anything that seems unpleasant to them. Why can't men have that freedom? The only honorable path for a man is, 'Marry a woman and take care of her until you or she dies'. If you do anything else, you're an ***hole, a momma's boy, or a slacker.

Many American women are like spoiled children. They want to be able to do whatever they want, while pointing fingers at others who aren't doing whatever those women want them to do. We've watched men come before us and get burned by the old societal rules for 30 years now. Not anymore - we're not gonna play by rules which seem to only apply to men.