this post was submitted on 31 Mar 2026
-2 points (45.5% liked)

Unpopular Opinion

8947 readers
50 users here now

Welcome to the Unpopular Opinion community!


How voting works:

Vote the opposite of the norm.


If you agree that the opinion is unpopular give it an arrow up. If it's something that's widely accepted, give it an arrow down.



Guidelines:

Tag your post, if possible (not required)


  • If your post is a "General" unpopular opinion, start the subject with [GENERAL].
  • If it is a Lemmy-specific unpopular opinion, start it with [LEMMY].


Rules:

1. NO POLITICS


Politics is everywhere. Let's make this about [general] and [lemmy] - specific topics, and keep politics out of it.


2. Be civil.


Disagreements happen, but that doesn’t provide the right to personally attack others. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Please also refrain from gatekeeping others' opinions.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Shitposts and memes are allowed but...


Only until they prove to be a problem. They can and will be removed at moderator discretion.


5. No trolling.


This shouldn't need an explanation. If your post or comment is made just to get a rise with no real value, it will be removed. You do this too often, you will get a vacation to touch grass, away from this community for 1 or more days. Repeat offenses will result in a perma-ban.


6. Defend your opinion


This is a bit of a mix of rules 4 and 5 to help foster higher quality posts. You are expected to defend your unpopular opinion in the post body. We don't expect a whole manifesto (please, no manifestos), but you should at least provide some details as to why you hold the position you do.



Instance-wide rules always apply. https://legal.lemmy.world/tos/

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 

the only time that alimony should be allowed is if:

in a scenario like this: john and lisa got married. then they get a divorce. john was ordered to pay X dollar amount to lisa to split up the financial assets. but John didn't have the X dollar amount as a lump sum payment. then the alimony would be set up to allow john to pay over time until X amount was transferred. ( an example : it might be most of the money is tied up in a long term investment and it would be financially stupid to end the long term investment early.. so a payment plan might be set up so lisa gets some of the profits over a period of time) maybe even have it be the X dollar amount plus some interest because she has to wait for the cash. obviously lisa and john would have to agree to the pay over time scenario and if they can't agree with what to do then the judge would decide for them.

but no one should ever have to keep paying a person after they are divorced. (other then the above situation). it only creates an incentive for a person to get a divorce. get alimony and the move in with another partner but refuse to get married. now she is getting money from the ex spouse but is also getting benefit of living with someone else. it just encourages bad behaviour.

when the marriage ends that's it . it ends. what's yours before the marriage is yours . what's gained during the marriage is split. then what is gained after the marriage is yours. the other half shouldn't get access to what is yours after the marriage. it makes no sense.

i do not care if you were a stay at home spouse. (a man can be a stay at home spouse the same as a wife can be a stay at home spouse) . i do not care. you get a lump sum pay out of the assets at the end of the marriage. figure it out after that. go get a damn job. why is someone allowed to live off of another person after a marriage has ended?

to add to this: what a person entered the marriage with is what they should get by default.

ex: lisa had 250,000 is cash when she entered the marriage. john had 75,000 in cash when he entered the marriage. when the divorce happens the first thing that should happen is lisa should get 250,000 in cash and john should get 75,000 in cash. that is what they entered with. then the assets gained during the marriage is what should be split. if you split up the 250,000 and the 75,000 then you are going to a point before the marriage and that makes no sense. so what happens if they spent all the money gained during the marriage and then some of the money from before the marriage? (in other words they went negative from where they were before the marriage)

simple: what ever percent of the pre marriage net worth was spent then that is the percent that each party loses of the 250,000 and 75,000 . i would hope that your net worth went up while married. it shouldn't have gone down unless there was a serious health crisis / long time loss of work on both people / serious mismanagement of the finances. but they both lose an equal percent of their pre-marriage cash.

top 5 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] KoboldCoterie@pawb.social 20 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Let's say in your example, Lisa and John both have successful careers. They get married, have kids, and agree that they don't both need to be working, so John keeps his job and Lisa takes care of the kids, takes care of the house, etc.

Twenty years later, they get divorced. Lisa now has a 20-year gap in her resume and her skillset is dated and she's functionally unemployable in her previous career. John has built up 20 years of expertise and has a successful career ahead of him.

Equitable distribution of assets is only part of it - future prospects need to be considered, as well.

[–] Paragone@lemmy.world 3 points 1 day ago

Exactly.

I'd not understood this until decades after my parents divorced.

Then Mom explained the retirement-consequences of being a housewife for years.. the retirement destitution consequences of that, that are normal..

It clicked in my mind, then.


Mind you, I don't find the 50%/50% split sane/rational in all cases..

How the HELL would the former-wife of the sociopath/destroyer-of-lowest-livelihoods Jeff Bezos have gained that many billions of $$, in her time married to him, doing ANYthing else?

There seems to be a requirement for proportionality, there..

( & there seems to be a need for proportionality in the pay-ladder, too!!

REQUIRING living-wage for the lowest-levels, & requiring that the pay-ladder be proportional all the way up, and not being the obscene embezzling-but-"legal" executive-pay that's now normal..

It's all part of a civilization-system, & no part can be "properly" isolated from the rest-of-the-system, obviously. )

_ /\ _

[–] Zedd00@lemmy.dbzer0.com 4 points 1 day ago

Here's another way to look at it: Everything is being split equally. The spouse that was staying at home wasn't bringing in money, but was providing value. Otherwise, they would have had a job. They weren't building a resume or climbing a corporate ladder though.

So say Lisa has worked for the last 25 years while the kids were being raised by John. Lisa is now in middle management making $100,000 a year compared to the $30,000 a year when they got married. The kids are through school, so Lisa doesn't need John to take care of them anymore, and fires his non-income producing ass(divorce). John, after staying home for 25 years can now go get a job at $30,000. He's out that 25 years of corporate experience that would have enabled him to be making $100,000. Alimony is to cover some of that shortfall.

[–] gurty@lemmy.world 2 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Its an opinion and its unpopular, so it checks out. No idea why people downvote.

[–] andrewta@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago

Honestly, I’m impressed by the Responses they are actually quite respectful and how people are responding. I was fully expecting some serious hate coming in.