Colorado forces income equality in a marriage

[tailfins]

Any man that doesn't study the different divorce laws around the country and plan accordingly is just begging to be blindsided. Such is study will reveal just how gruesome Colorado can be. If a married man lives in Denver he might want to choose that watercolor painting class over that Cloud Computing class. He should not volunteer to work overtime to get that promotion. In other words, he should dumb-down his career as not to get too out of sync with his wife. Why is that?


Imagine getting stuck paying $5K per month for 10 years. AND There's no "right to retire" like there is in Massachusetts.

https://www.nocodivorcelaw.com/spous...-end-colorado/

CALCULATING SPOUSAL SUPPORT

The courts in Colorado will calculate the amount of a spousal support award using a complex percentage system. For example, they will take 40% of the higher-earning party’s monthly gross income and subtract half of the lower earner’s monthly income. If the higher earner has a gross monthly income of $10,000, for example, and the lower earner makes $5,000, the spousal support award would be $1,500 ($10,000 x 40% = $4,000; $5,000 x 50% = $2,500; $4,000 – $2,500 = $1,500). The percentages can depend on the length of the marriage. An attorney can help you calculate your potential spousal support arrangement.
THE LENGTH OF A SPOUSAL SUPPORT ARRANGEMENT

If a judge deems spousal support appropriate in a divorce case, he or she may order a temporary or permanent award to one party. Temporary awards are more common. They do not last for the rest of the recipient’s life. A temporary support order may last until the divorce is final if one spouse requested spousal maintenance during the divorce process. In other cases, a judge may make a temporary order part of the divorce decree. Colorado has a lengthy and detailed list of how long spousal support will last if the couple was married at least 3 years but less than 20.

• 3 years: 31% for 11 months
• 5 years: 35% for 21 months
• 10 years: 45% for 54 months
• 15 years: 50% for 90 months
• 20 years: 50% for 120 months

[SassyLady]

Any man that doesn't study the different divorce laws around the country and plan accordingly is just begging to be blindsided. Such is study will reveal just how gruesome Colorado can be. If a married man lives in Denver he might want to choose that watercolor painting class over that Cloud Computing class. He should not volunteer to work overtime to get that promotion. In other words, he should dumb-down his career as not to get too out of sync with his wife. Why is that?


Imagine getting stuck paying $5K per month for 10 years. AND There's no "right to retire" like there is in Massachusetts.

https://www.nocodivorcelaw.com/spous...-end-colorado/

Why do you say "any man"? Are you assuming only the man is higher wage earner?

[darin]

We shall never be free until the State gets out of the Marriage business.

[tailfins]

Why do you say "any man"? Are you assuming only the man is higher wage earner?

That's an interesting question. I'm saying being the high wage earner in Colorado carries a huge risk. What I am saying is that it's easier for a woman to get away with not having a job than for a man.

I heard one MGTOW advocate put it very well:

Housing for a woman that can't afford to sustain her family: Section 8 vouchers
Housing for a man that can't afford to sustain his family: Incarceration

[darin]

Why do you say "any man"? Are you assuming only the man is higher wage earner?

Not specifically to this subject - but anecdotally i know of men who earned less than their spouse and still paid her spousal support. The court said "(the wife) is used to a lifestyle commensurate with the combined income. Thus, (the husband) must help transition (the wife) to the adjusted lifestyle requirements. (parenthetical because they used 'the applicant [for divorce]' and 'the defendant'? But those two words are NOT right - I just don't recall. But I know the scope of the judgements and happened)."

Same with "child" support - I think "Family" court is a bastion of sexism and inequality - the system is rigged and blatantly sexist. That is not to say some women have not been hosed-over; because I know they have. But trend data points towards men losing overwhelmingly.

[fj1200]

We shall never be free until the State gets out of the Marriage business.

There will still be contract issues upon dissolution of a partnership involving the courts.

[darin]

There will still be contract issues upon dissolution of a partnership involving the courts.

Sure! No problem. That's fine - but the personal relationship between the parties is of, should be of, no concern to The State

[fj1200]

[tailfins]

Not specifically to this subject - but anecdotally i know of men who earned less than their spouse and still paid her spousal support. The court said "(the wife) is used to a lifestyle commensurate with the combined income. Thus, (the husband) must help transition (the wife) to the adjusted lifestyle requirements. (parenthetical because they used 'the applicant [for divorce]' and 'the defendant'? But those two words are NOT right - I just don't recall. But I know the scope of the judgements and happened)."

Same with "child" support - I think "Family" court is a bastion of sexism and inequality - the system is rigged and blatantly sexist. That is not to say some women have not been hosed-over; because I know they have. But trend data points towards men losing overwhelmingly.

That's a worse outcome than that person would get in Colorado. In what jurisdiction did the lower earning ex-husband pay alimony? Now you have me interested in reading some "family" court cases from that jurisdiction. FWIW: Texas and Georgia are the friendliest states for higher earners to not pay alimony.